Migration, more migration and damned migration. Can the EU be blamed or not? Re-visiting the impact that Brexit has on migration to the UK.
This is the third article that I am writing in this series. The first two posts, I admit were far easier for me to write. Migration into the UK is a complex issue, and one which certainly affects Europe big-time. As I have done in my previous articles, I am presenting my thoughts in a question and answer format.
1. I have not read your first two articles. Could you very briefly tell me what you had stated to bring me fully into the picture, before I discuss migration with you?
The first article was called ‘The UK’s place is in the EU. Re-examining the concept of sovereignty’. In this post, I showed how there are national issues (that Britain decides on its own) and that there are federal issues (that Britain needs to decide with other countries anyway, irrespective if it is in the EU or not). I showed that while it is in the EU, Britain has a voice in how these federal issues are decided that it would lose once it leaves. Since Britain has less bargaining power outside the EU than had it would have had it to remain inside the EU; its leaving the EU would impact negatively on Britain – being totally free of the EU (in real terms) is simply not possible.
The second article was given the tongue in cheek title of ‘Let’s not give British money to those EU buggers. Let’s keep it for ourselves. Re-examining where the money that Britain gives to the EU goes.’ I have showed that, once again, Britain stands to lose significantly if it leaves the EU - since while it is true it would not have to pay certain contributions to Brussels, these are relatively small expenses relative to its overall budget. In return Britain, as an EU country is benefitting by the dead weight gain from trade that results from comparative advantages associated with the EU trading as a bloc in contrast to each country trading individually. Normally, the bigger your market is, the bigger your dead weight gains will be, provided you have a level playing field (thereby implying that everyone follows the same rules; and there are the checks and balances in place to ensure that these rules are followed). I have also explained that added to all of this, there will be new trade barriers erected once Britain leaves the EU, and this can weaken Britain economically. To pour oil on already troubled waters, foreign companies might also pull out, if Britain has no access to the European market. From an economic perspective, if one maps out the balance sheet carefully, there is no doubt that Britain has a lot to lose by leaving the EU.
2. We are all familiar with the expression ‘Brexit is Brexit.’ Don’t you think you are wasting your time by speaking out against Brexit. The British are simply saying they want Britain back. They do not want all these migrants. This is the reason why they voted leave in the referendum. I myself voted out, out, out and I want out. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Thank you for your questions. You have mentioned two points in your one question. You have asked me about migration. And you have asked me about the referendum. I will tackle them in turn.
About migration: I agree that migration is a hot topic even though I am unfortunately unable to say if it was the priority on people’s minds when they voted to leave, i.e. for Brexit, since leaving the EU/Brexit meant many different things to different people. However, what I can say with certainty is that migration is also an area in which emotions certainly run high! I empathise with people’s concern that not just the EU, but also many political parties and governments across Europe, have not figured out good policies to deal with migration effectively. Consequently, people all over Europe (and not just in the UK) are afraid of losing out culturally and not simply economically. I believe that people do not make a distinction between the freedom of movement of people from different parts of the EU and migration from outside the EU. This further adds to the overall confusion.
Speaking with the competence of a person with a doctoral degree in sociology and who has several papers that have been published in academic journals about migration and the education of migrants to my credit, I can state with confidence that unfettered migration will give rise to xenophobia that is rooted in the almost inevitable of subsequent formation of socio-economically disadvantaged ghettos by clusters of people from different ethnic backgrounds. These ghettoes will not spring up in the UK but will spring up all over Europe and possibly becoming a breeding ground for terrorists and people with skewed ideologies.
Having said all this, if somebody tells me that they voted for Brexit since they are worried that ghettos will form in their countries in the manner I am saying, I would say that their concerns are certainly understandable and certainly merit due attention both on national and federal levels in Europe. However, if I simply stop there and say nothing else, I would not do justice for the people who voted Remain, who probably also shared similar concerns. I can safely assume that they voted Remain because they considered the whole package, observing that they had far more to lose by leaving the EU – DESPITE – as I see it, the threat of ghettoes forming.
About the referendum: Referring to the referendum at this point follows on nicely to what I am saying, since it is precisely this dilemma which shows how the referendum result means so little in the real world. In a previous article, I mentioned that if someone had to ask me whether to choose between apples and oranges, I would know what I would be choosing, and my choice would be certain. However, if I was asked to choose between apples and other fruit, heavens help me! I would probably be thinking that the person asking me to make that choice was ‘a little bit mad’ and ask him – in sarcastic undertones - which other fruit he was expecting me to choose from. The referendum was equally ‘a little bit mad’! Added to this, I believe that people may lack the knowledge about the workings of EU that is necessary for them to make an informed decision in a referendum whether Britain’s place is in the EU or not. The EU is a complicated beast to understand.
3. I know that people can migrate to the UK from EU and non-EU countries. Do you think we have had an exaggerated influx of people from Eastern Europe though?
I find it fascinating that you are mentioning this. When, in 2004, ten countries joined the EU, 14/15 of the old member states put a seven-year moratorium on freedom of movement from the new member states. The UK demanded an opt out, and got it, and as a result was the only country that opened its doors from day one. So, what happened is everybody from the other EU countries did not have much choice if they wanted to leave their countries other than to go to Britain for seven whole years. That decision by the UK government caused a massive influx. Everybody who felt stuck in those countries who wanted to move, moved then, and, inevitably, with the doors of all other countries closed, they went to Britain.
Now, that's no longer a factor as the seven-year block ended for the other 14 countries; and, thereby, people are gradually dispersing. As common sense would tell us, though, if people have been a country for seven years, they might find it difficult to move elsewhere. If Britain leaves the EU, granted that it has now opted to take all the people who are already living there in, and subject to satisfying certain criteria, offer them citizenship; they would essentially be in a different position, though – since now they would find themselves ‘effectively’ locked in. (If Britain does not respect the rights of the people from other EU countries to remain in the UK, it is likely that other EU countries would retaliate by not respecting the rights of British people to live in those countries). Equally as emphatically, if Britain does not take in the people from EU member states who live there, this will cause chaos in Britain, since, firms would be left without workers. There are roughly one million UK citizens living in the EU and there are a further three million EU citizens living in the UK). At the time when Britain opted out of the seven-year block, this brought about a net result where the UK suffered a tidal wave of migration from Eastern Europe post 2004 - and for 7 years until the other countries opened their doors to migrants in 2011. This was completely Britain's own doing.
Migration will not end with Brexit though, contrary to what some Brexiteers believe. Judge Forrester points out in a paper entitled European Law in the UK after Brexit which has been published in the Judicial Review 2018 23(1), 45-64 – in today’s world … “people look to work in new places. Political frontiers in Western Europe are not what they were forty years ago. That toothpaste cannot be squeezed back into the tube.” Or, as John Springford points out: ‘if Britain left the EU, future British governments would be more likely than not to curb immigration from the rest of Europe. But as baby-boomers retire and jobs are created at the high- and low-skilled ends of Britain’s labour market, demand for immigrant labour is likely to grow, not shrink.’ So, in terms of curbing migration, the British cannot do much. Britain will still have to find ways to permit the transfer of goods, services and capital; only this time round without the dead weight gains from EU legislation that remove non-tariff trade barriers that allow business to operate seamlessly all over the EU. Examples of non-trade barriers include identical standards for things from washing machines to banks. Therefore, rather than solving migration issues, Britain’s leaving the EU will bring about a situation where the British people have lost their rights as European citizens to end up by far worse off than they were when in the EU.
We must always remember that Britain, like any other EU country, would have to respect freedom of movement if it were to remain in the EU. Whatever damage has been done by British politicians with their prior decisions has been done. Like all political decisions, including Brexit, it is the man in the street who is influenced and suffer the after-effects of a tidal wave of migration due to irresponsible policy-making, not only Britain’s leaders. As European citizens, British people have the right to the freedom of movement of (1) persons, (2) of goods, (3) of services, and (4) of capital. It is easy to understand why the free flow of persons is a cardinal building block of the EU, namely that the less obstructions people to forge relationships with other people and business in other parts of the EU, the more likely it is for them to conduct business in those parts of the EU. Mobility is cardinal. However, contrary to what the Brexiteers say, mobility of people from other EU countries into Britain is not a bad thing for Britain. Figures calculated for the Migration Advisory Committee show that the average adult migrant from the EEA contributes ￡2,300 more to the UK public purse than the average UK resident. Old member state citizens contribute the most - but even the lower-paid eastern European workers are making a net public contribution. In all, EEA migrants paid ￡4.7bn more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services.
As I am explaining, the free flow of goods, services, and capital are heavily influenced by the freedom of movement of persons. They are all interconnected with one another. This explains why the skills-based immigration system that had been suggested by Ms. May’s government as part of the Brexit plan is not really an effective alternative to EU membership. First and foremost, it is misleading in the way it is written, people can still be offered to immigrate to Britain from all over the world, irrespective of whether Britain is an EU country or not. Secondly, the statistics of the Migration Advisory Committee that I have just cited show that the migrants who stay on in Britain are economically viable as human resources. Thirdly, the skills-based immigration system deals simply with the movement of persons; and, therefore, does not address the problems that will be faced by British businesses via (i) change of supply routes since supply chains may be affected by tariff and other country of origin requirements; (ii) additional costs and hurdles with cross-border transit; and (ii) the termination of EU funding across various sectors. The issues are by far more complex than may at first meet the eye.
4. Mrs. May’s government had explained that if we leave the EU, we could have a free trade area with the EU, with no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, helping to protect UK jobs. We will be the only major economy with such a relationship with the EU. What are your views on this?
Well, as I said in my previous point, this is a very simplistic way of describing something that is indeed complex. One of the points that British people fail to keep in mind, particularly when they use the word negotiations or relationships is that they are misleading. Why should the EU negotiate anything with Britain? Why should an elephant give up something to please an ant? Negotiation is a give and take. It sounds nice. We can use it in the British press to convince people that the government is doing a good job. Or we can simply know that these are negotiations are not negotiations at all. Likewise, if a relationship does not reflect the result of negotiations, then what type of relationship is this? Who is pulling all the strings?
In leaving the EU, British politicians will face the reality that they are pitting itself against another 27 countries. In my young days, I once had a Physics teacher who, in order to explain the concept of variable resistance asked me to imagine a boy of form I (a boy of 11) who goes to fight a boy in form V (a boy of 15), and then say who would be more likely to win the fight. Nature takes its course – in both the boys’ case and the Britain/EU case. Any deviation from EU rules destroys trade and hence harms the UK economy. The EU is much less effected. It has a huge market anyway. So, it loses relatively little from dead weight welfare loses from comparative advantages if the UK leaves. The UK on the other hand loses hugely. Hence the power dynamic is all in the EU's favour. Which is why, in practical terms, in complete converse to the arguments presented in favour of Brexit, the UK will have to align with EU rules, not the EU will have to align with UK rules. Any British politician who believes otherwise would be clearly misguided. Outside the EU, the British can simply try to do things that seem to make sense to them, and provided that they do not transgress on any of the EU rules, can thereby easily sell to the British public that they have successfully negotiated their aspirations with Brussels and for this reason deserve to be elected in any upcoming general election. Very nice. Very clever. However, very untrue.
Let us unravel the notion of a free trade area, in the British context, in greater depth. Countries with EU trade agreements accounted for roughly 15% of all British imports and exports in the past years. Without the deals, the UK would be thrust onto World Trade Organisation terms with these countries. What does this mean? Without free trade, Britain’s exporters would be confronted with costly tariffs and customs checks. Tariffs can even go up to 30% in some cases, for instance if it is to trade with Egypt. If this is not bad enough, the UK would also have to impose tariffs. This means, as anybody can readily reason out, that the prices charged to consumers will rise. The rich may not get any richer but the poor will certainly become poorer. A free trade area means that you have no tariffs on goods. However, if two countries have different regulatory rules, what they would need is regulatory convergence; a common rule book. This matters for goods, as has been stated above. However, it also matters, and indeed, it matters a billion times more, for services. Without a common regulatory system for banks, advertising agencies, port services, etc, you cannot have trade in services. It is impossible to align with two blocs at once. And to have true regulatory convergence, you need a single parliament making the rules and a single court enforcing them. Now, outside the EU, this is impossible. In practical terms, the oil for all of this to happen is the free movement of people from all over Europe. Europeans would be needed to contribute to the emergence of common ideas, common protocols, and to form common agreements. Contrary to the beliefs of the Brexiters, the EU is rooted from its core on the foundation and harmony of European people. Without the free movement of people, there would be no EU.
5. Well let’s be positive. At least, visa-free travel to the EU for holidays and business trips for British people and for people coming from European countries will continue. Does this not substitute partially for the free movement of people?
I am afraid it does not. Visa-free travel is not the same thing as the freedom of movement since people would be restricted in the length of time that they can spend in other EU countries. They do not have the access to finding employment in other EU member-states that they once enjoyed. According to: https://move.bg/effects-of-brexit-on-the-freedom-of-movement-for-citizens-of-the-european-union-living-in-the-uk, the following considerations need to be borne in mind:
a) The perspectives of permanent residents must also take into consideration people’s labour rights guaranteed by the EU, such as guaranteed paid leave, limit to the working hours, the rights of the temporary employed, maternity and paternity leave. Currently the EU and its institutions is the guarantor of these rights and it is unsure how they will be affected once the UK leaves.
b) Seasonal workers may find the U.K. less attractive, particularly if it goes into a recession due to the overall net losses that it suffers from leaving the EU, particularly through losing the dead weight gains from EU legislation that remove non-tariff trade barriers (for example, identical standards for things from washing machines to banks) and that allow business to operate seamlessly.
c) Universities in the UK are among the most attractive for EU students, who contribute around 2.7 billion GBP a year and create an additional 19 000 jobs both in academia and in the administration and maintenance. EU students currently pay fees that are equal to those paid by UK students, around 9 000 GBP a year, which are three times less than the fees paid by students from outside of the EU and there have been fears that this will change; and foreign student fees will be imposed on EU students as well. There are worries raised about the access to student loans, as well. The other important element here is access to research funding, which in the last years of austerity of the Conservative government many UK universities have increasingly started to use EU funding for research (The UK contributed nearly €5.4 billion to EU research projects from 2007 to 2013 but received nearly €8.8 billion back in the same period).
d) Tourists are likely to be the least effected by Brexit. Border control is still in place, as the UK was never part of the Schengen agreement (and thus the UK ‘is’ in control of its borders) but visa checks for most EU nationalities were abolished already in the 80s and the task to re-introduce those, if ever undertaken, will be an enormous administrative effort with a lot of uncertainties.
e) It is likely that much of the Brexit campaign has been directed at migrants, particularly from Eastern Europe, who allegedly drain the British social security system. However, there is no proven link between the inflow of migrants from the EU and access to the social security system (most EU migrants continue to come for work) and that every sound, peer-reviewed research has shown that migrants generally pay more into the social system than they take out (including the latest research on the effects of Brexit on Immigration from the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE).
What are your final comments?
Well, I am in the lecturing and university field, and I feel sorry that English university students can go through worrying times relative to other Europeans. Allow me to explain myself. Britain wants to have the cake and eat it. It wants to participate in EU projects that allow student and staff mobility. Yet, it is overlooking that as a non-EU country, this will be a privilege and not a right. And all of us know that privileges can be volatile. The EU does not owe Britain anything. Add to this that with Brexit, young people who are studying at colleges/universities will not be able to (a) study abroad in other EU countries at EU rates, and thereby some would be likely to find themselves deprived of this opportunity; (b) to work if/while they are following their studies abroad in an EU country (thereby leaving a marked impact on less financially well-off university students, who may opt of studying abroad because they simply cannot afford the cost in total). Having said this, particularly within university contexts, the strength of the EU’s R&D growth has resided in the freedom to work with EU member countries on ground breaking projects and sharing the money jar. However, even if Britain will be able to participate in EU funding; with Horizon 2020, strict criteria need to be met, such as free movement of people, and contributing to funds based on GDP and population, which is a key factor underlying Brexit, since Britain wants to be financially independent from the EU. Given the circumstances, Britain may have to pay more than its current contribution to EU programmes to reap its benefits and/or accept limited involvement since it will no longer be a net contributor investing into less competitive areas.*
Damian Spiteri Ph.D. is a specialist on education and has published a book entitled Multiculturalism, Higher Education, and Intercultural Communication (Palgrave Macmillan). https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137513663 He is currently working on other books in the education field.
(The author would like to thank Dr. Ken Mifsud Bonnici, a lawyer who works at the European Commission) for taking the time to read through earlier versions of this paper, to suggest revisions, and, above all, for his kind permission to insert excerpts from his feedback directly into the above text. The author also wants to thank Eric Formosa for the illustration).
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/can-the-uk-rejoin-world-trade-organization-a-response-from-wto/
https://www.gaeu.com/item/brexit-impact-on-horizon-2020 *
Forrester, I. (2018). European Law in the UK after Brexit, Judicial Review 23(1), 45-64