As I prepare this post for publication, things are once again heating up in British politics. The trigger is the government's Illegal Immigration Bill, which would see any foreigner who chooses non-official routes to enter the country interned and deported. In effect, the bill would make it almost impossible to claim asylum in the UK. As it stands, it is likely to conflict with international agreements, not to mention the Human Rights Convention.
The bill was introduced with much fanfare: Suella Braverman, the current Home Secretary, spoke in Parliament of over 100 million people who could claim asylum in the UK under the current "lax" legislation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak gave a speech from a desk with "STOP THE BOATS" written on it. Small boats crossing the English Channel from France are the main route of entry for asylum seekers.
In contrast to the threat of 100 million people who could soon be entering Britain, only a few 10,000 arrive on the island each year via this route to seek protection.
The whole campaign is not only inhumane, it is a farce: The bill is unlikely to be voted on before the next election and will attract legal action before international legal bodies, which the law is unlikely to withstand. In my opinion, the ruling conservatives have only chosen this gambit to fire up their own ranks and distract attention from other problems such as the cost of living crisis, the state of the healthcare system, or the recession. And it can only be said that the Tories have succeeded in distracting attention!
Apart from the scandalous content of the bill, immigration is an issue that always scores points on the island. As I heard for myself, see last post, it was also one of the main reasons why those I interviewed voted to leave the EU. An impression confirmed by virtually all analyses of the referendum outcome.
TIme to take a closer look at the topic. Britain is undoubtedly a country of immigration, and the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU has had a considerable impact on net immigration. While it was around 180,000 in 2003, it jumped to around 320,000 in the 12 months after the EU-enlargement [1]. In the following years, the number fluctuated between 200,000 and 300,000 except for a few extreme values, a permanent and significant increase compared to the time before enlargement.
In the 12 months before the referendum, the figure was just over 300,000, only to fall back below this threshold by mid-2019, mostly below 250,000 [2]. The drop in overall immigration numbers had a lot to do with the outcome of the referendum. In the three years before, almost 200,000 people a year immigrated from the EU. After, the number plummeted, only to stabilise from mid-2018, at around 50-60,000. The influx from the eastern countries of the Union came to a complete halt by the end of 2019 [2].
You may have noticed that the decline in EU immigration was much greater than overall immigration. This was due to an increased influx from other world regions. Their numbers almost doubled after the referendum ended, reaching over 280,000 immigrants by the end of 2019. About 80 per cent came from Asia [2]. A strange development for a country in which large parts of the population are critical of immigration. Especially since the British government has full control over this flow of immigrants.
Also, the immigration from Eastern Europe after 2004 was not solely the result of the European rules on the free movement of people. Those responsible in the EU had anticipated a possible mass movement from the new member states towards the West. For this reason, every original EU member was allowed to close off its labour market to the new EU citizens for a maximum of seven years. It was hoped that the new countries would benefit so much from the common market and subsidies in the meantime that there would be no mass migration after the opening of the western markets.
Germany closed off its labour market for the entire seven years, also for possible workers from Romania and Bulgaria after these countries joined in 2007. France took a similar approach. An uncontrolled wave of immigration did not materialise.
Great Britain, on the other hand, opened its borders immediately and became a destination for people from Eastern Europe in excess. Had British leaders underestimated the consequences of EU enlargement? I would like to quote Tony Blair, who was British Prime Minister at the time. In the wonderful Brexit documentary "The Clock is Ticking" he explained: "Oh, we got the numbers completely wrong. We thought there would be tens of thousands that turned out to be hundreds of thousands of people coming." [3]. Yes, they had underestimated the consequences.
The EU's principle of free movement of people was one of the reasons for the wave of immigration in recent years. But the decisions of the various British governments played at least as big a role. Even after the misjudgment of the Blair government, total immigration could have been reduced, such as closing off its market after Bulgaria and Romania joined three years later, or by more strictly limiting immigration from non EU countries. Why did the British government not step in?
A look at the economy and the labour market is helpful. There is not much truth in the argument put forward by many that immigrants are taking jobs away from the British and living on the state's cost. For example, with a few exceptions, the unemployment rate has been falling steadily since 1992, from 10.5 per cent down to 3.8 per cent in autumn 2019, the lowest figure since the 1970s [4].
And EU immigrants, in particular, are paying tidy tax contributions instead of drawing them off. According to a study by Oxford Economics, in 2016/17 on average they had each contributed £2,300 more to the annual government revenue than the average British tax payer [5].
Nevertheless, I can understand the opposition of many Britons to the immigrants. They are likely to have contributed their share to the problems I described earlier, such as increases in rents and other living costs. And they will hardly have pushed up wages. The competition within society became greater.
But many sections of society benefited from immigration. Landlords, house owners and sellers, construction companies and all businesses that supply the population with goods. Immigrants, especially those who were absorbed by the labour market, meant economic growth.
Finally, the state benefited, as can be seen from the contributions of EU immigrants. Without the influx, Britain's debt problem would be a lot bigger. In terms of public finances, the country needs immigrants as badly as a junkie needs the next fix. And there was never enough until it became too much.
With the EU exit, any British government faces a dilemma. They can no longer pass blame on immigration to the European Union. Either they keep the borders open to drive economic growth and limit debt growth, risking resentment by parts of the population, especially from Britons who resent Arab, Asian or African immigrants, their numbers are more likely to increase.
Or the government limits immigration, stifles growth and increases the debt crisis. Here, too, resentment among the population would be the result. By necessity, there would be more austerity programmes, and thus even less support for the poor, the elderly, children or young adults, and even less funding to counteract the decay of infrastructure. Brave new Brexit world. (It is already a reality.)
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.
[4] Unemployment rate UK