Sunday, June 19, 2016

Why Brexit is so wrong on immigration

In the last few days before the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain or quit the European Union, those in favour of leaving, or a Brexit, as it is popularly called, will continue to play what they see as their trump card – immigration.

They will say that without sovereign control over its borders the UK will be swamped by millions of Turks; there will be unacceptable strains on public services such as health and education; there will be no control over an influx of murderers, rapists, and terrorists to its cities, the crime rate will soar, the streets will not be safe.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have heard this call down through recent history (remember Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood?). Every time the opposite has been the case. Britons should know this because they have seen waves of immigration in the past – West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis, Ugandan Asians, and indeed from the EU itself.

In all cases these new arrivals have actually been net contributors to the economy, paying more in taxes than is spent on them. Overwhelmingly, they work hard at whatever jobs they can find — often at jobs the indigenous population rejects. Check the hospitals and schools: Health and education could not function without their contribution and those of their sons and daughters.

There will be no ‘Islamic invasion’ from Turkey. That country needs to carry out a mountain of internal reforms before it is eligible for EU admission and until then visa restrictions will still be in place. And yes, under current EU rules the UK can keep out criminal elements – rapists, murderers and terrorists included.

The other leg of the Brexit case is an appeal to blind patriotism: ‘Give us back our country’; ‘make Britain great again’; ‘Let’s stop being dictated to by faceless Civil Servants in Brussels’. I have even heard Winston Churchill being quoted (perhaps Brexit supporters should look up his ‘United States of Europe’ speech delivered on 19 September, 1946 in Zurich).

The thrust of these slogans appears to be that the United Kingdom can roll back the clock to the days when the mother country presided over a Commonwealth where the sun never set and that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the rest will immediately jump to replace the EU as trading partners.

Sadly for this simplistic philosophy, the world has moved on from the 1950s and 60s. Australia’s main trading partner is China, followed by Japan. Canberra is far more interested in what happens in Shanghai and Tokyo than it is in London or Manchester.

Australia no longer looks to the mother country or regards the UK as ‘family’. Its population has undergone change as its own waves of immigration have brought Vietnamese, Chinese and latterly Indians to its shores, complimenting earlier arrivals from immediate post-war Europe – people who have little or no interest or enthusiasm for a renewed British connection.

The Economist newspaper states that almost half of the United Kingdom’s exports go to Europe. To find new markets for these Britain would need to replace the dozens of trade pacts that it benefits from by being in the EU. The process would be slow and frustrating, as President Barack Obama has pointed out, because the UK, on its own, would be a weaker (and inexperienced) negotiating partner.

In the meantime, the standard of living of ordinary Britons would decline, the pound would lose value; the cost of all imported goods would rise. I do not hold with the forecast that the results would be catastrophic (blood in the streets etc.) but it is inevitable that the country and its people would be worse off — considerably worse off — than they are today. 

These are facts that should be considered by Britons as they go to the polls on Thursday – not the obfuscations, half-truths and downright lies pedalled by Brexit.

Britons can vote to leave the EU, but they cannot vote to leave Europe. The continent has provided the UK with its partners, its allies, its foes and its battlegrounds throughout history. This week Britons have a choice between the pursuit of prosperity with these traditional neighbours and the uncertainties of an inhospitable and indifferent world.  It should really be no choice at all.    


  

No comments:

Post a Comment