There is only one month to go until the grand expansion of the EU. In May Europe’s established states will ‘welcome’ in their emerging neighbours. But far from highlighting the possible enriching effect this matrimony will have, the rightwing press and politicians alike have begun to flex their vocal cords in all their pessimistic glory.
The underlying rightwing suspicion and downright opposition to immigration have been apparent for generations. But in this modern age of political correctness and accomodatory gesturing the right have had to bait their breath. Their anti-immigration rhetoric has been there for all to see but its direction has been fractured, concentrating on distinct cases or incidents. But now with the embracing of Europe’s emerging nations, the British right has a clearly defined cause. That cause, of course, is the imminent arrival or ‘invasion’ of a mass of immigrants from the economically underdeveloped countries of the East.
The above analysis of the right is as subjective as the right’s analysis of immigration. However, when you begin to look at the facts the right’s analysis falls away. First, rightwing press and politicians seem to conveniently forget that this is not a one-way agreement. Britain and the rest of the EU’s current fifteen states stand to gain extensively from the enlargement. The expansion will create the biggest single market in the world, providing access to a wider range of suppliers as well as export and investment opportunities for British companies both large and small.
Furthermore, a little historic perspective is needed here. Think back to when Spain and Portugal entered the EU. Weren’t they going to be a net drain on the organisation? Weren’t we as British citizens going to see a mass influx of Iberian immigrants on British streets? Well, the reality has proved slightly different. The economies of the two accession countries in question actually grew at a faster rate than the average upon entry to the EU, while Iberian immigration to the UK, and for that matter to the other EU member states, was statistically laughable. And, furthermore, Spain and Portugal have now matured into two of the most vibrant economies in the world, representing Britain’s eighth and 20th biggest export destinations, respectively. The parallels between the new states of Eastern Europe and pre-EU Spain are strong, and especially strong in the case of Portugal. So, why are we, or precisely the right, being so damn negative?
The fact is that if you were to posit this business-led argument to your average Daily Mailista they would probably tell you that you’re missing the point. ‘We’re happy to see augmented business opportunities both for Eastern Europe and the UK,’ they would say, ‘after all, we’re the free-marketers not you guys!’ For the right, the problem is solely about immigration. They’re happy to see Aleksander and Miroslav entering into one big European economic community as long as they stay where they are. This is an age-old problem for the right. How do they reconcile their desire for free movement of capital with their fear of free movement of labour, something which conventional economic logic says should go hand in hand with capital market liberalisation? But instead of tackling this paradox within their thinking, the right wing press and the Conservative party plough on regardless producing line after line of reactionary comment.
The amazing thing is that this tactic has been remarkably successful, and there is one central reason for this success: the people in question turn what is effectively an economic issue into a political one. If we look at that issue regardless of the business advantages EU enlargement will bring to the UK, there is also really not much economic evidence supporting a tougher line on immigration towards the new EU citizens.
A recent study by University College London, stated that ‘the perception that immigrants take away jobs from natives, thus contributing to large increases in unemployment, or that immigrants depress wages of native workers, do not find confirmation in our analysis.’ A very boring quote from what one imagines is a very boring report. However, this is the point. The government didn’t ignore the politically sensitive immigration issue when formulating UK policy towards EU enlargement, neither were they irresponsible in not addressing the issue. The truth is that they simply sat down, assessed the possible affects EU enlargement would have on Britain’s economy and decided that there was no need to create added regulation for new EU citizens entering the country.
This decision is once again based on some rather boring research. First, while immigrants currently make up eight percent of our population, they generate ten percent of our total wealth. The majority of immigrants that come and work in our country do the jobs that are seen as low paid and highly undesirable by the native workforce. They are also jobs that have previously been done by immigrants as well, meaning that there is hardly any interchange between immigrant and native employment.
And what about the welfare state and our precious health service; is Britain really going to see a marked increase in so-called ‘benefit tourism’? First, let’s be clear about the government position on this. Immigrants who will be entitled to work in this country as a result of the EU enlargement will indeed be able to use the health service and claim benefits. But these benefits are only bequeathed to immigrants who have been legally working in the UK and thus contributing to the state. People cannot simply come here and take; they have to give as well.
Second, immigrants in the UK are currently net contributors to the exchequer. In layman’s terms this means the state is currently running a surplus rather than a deficit on immigrant welfare expenditure, which disproves the right’s worry about immigrants putting ever more strain on Britain’s welfare state. Furthermore, on the ground the evidence is fairly conclusive as well. The Economist recently commented that far from being scroungers, immigrants to the UK are generally hard working and come here with a determination to get on rather than simply live off the state.
The government, to its credit, has acted sensibly and logically over the issue of post-EU enlargement immigration. Unfortunately they have allowed the right to take the initiative back by allowing them to turn an ostensibly economic non-issue into one that has become politically central. It is the duty of progressives to make sure people see beyond the petty concerns of the politically motivated right and start to understand the need for a sensible approach to immigration. We live in a country currently enjoying its lowest employment level in thirty years where the economy consistently outstrips the growth rates of its Eurozone competitors. As a result we currently have approximately 550,000 vacancies in our vibrant economy.
So what is the best course of action? Do we pander to the right and create overzealous reactionary controls on immigration or do we continue to allow regulated entry for immigrants to work legally within our economy? If we take the first approach, the outcome will be yet further increases in our already significant informal economy, as immigrants take the illegal path into the UK. If we take the second approach, the outcome may be far more beneficial. Primarily, the benefits will be seen in terms of a drop in the number of jobs in areas such as transport and health care which are currently being left unfilled, but also by legally allowing immigrants into the UK, we will be increasing the number of people paying into the state through taxes and National Insurance, thus bolstering the coffers of the state. Unfortunately, this is a scenario the right is unwilling to comprehend. Our job is to make sure they have to.