When two friends, whose opinions you respect, agree on something enough to write about it together I tend to take note. Jonathon Porritt and Colin Hines, both friends and both respected environmental campaigners, have co-authored a paper on immigration. This is a difficult area for the left. I commented on their paper in draft. I don't agree with it all. But I think the debate is worth having. This is what Jonathan wrote about the paper on his blog:
I still find it hard to believe that more people in this country feel we'd be better off outside the EU than remaining in the EU. For me, there are three main reasons for this astonishing outcome at the 2016 Referendum:
1. The Stronger In campaign was dreadful, a botched, Tory-driven nightmare from start to finish.
2. The ‘politics of fear' on which the campaign was based left no room for any positive vision of the future of Europe.
3. All those on the progressive left (Labour, Lib Dems and the Green Party) had not the first idea how to deal with what turned out to be a deeply unpleasant debate about IMMIGRATION.
That all-important third point has been weighing on my mind ever since. So, earlier this year, together with my good friend Colin Hines, we started work on a paper on immigration — unapologetically advocating for ‘taking back control' of immigration into and between EU countries, but from a progressive political perspective rather than through the warped mindset of, say, the Daily Mail.
That paper (‘The Progressive Case for Taking Control of EU Immigration — and Avoiding Brexit in the Process') is being launched today.
Do please have a look at the accompanying PR — which you'll see immediately below:
“PRESS RELEASE
Progressive Parties in the UK Must Now Address the Immigration Challenge Head On if Brexit is to be Avoided
Immigration was the dominant issue for voters in the 2016 Referendum demanding that UK politicians should ‘take back control' of our borders from the EU.
Since then, however, Brexit discussions have focussed on the so-called ‘divorce issues', with immigration apparently off the agenda. This has allowed Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens to keep their heads down on what remains the highly controversial issue of immigration.
A hard-hitting paper from Jonathon Porritt and Colin Hines suggests that this is very unwise. Public opinion on Brexit continues to soften, but any serious prospect of avoiding a ‘hard Brexit' (which remains a critical priority for all progressive parties), let alone of rejecting Brexit altogether, depends on decisively addressing UK voters' concerns about immigration.
Jonathon Porritt: “Progressive parties have already paid a high price, across Europe, by allowing right-wing and populist parties to manipulate citizens' concerns about high levels of immigration coming into and moving between EU countries. All EU countries are now wrestling with this ongoing dilemma, with the majority of their citizens demanding that their governments should indeed manage immigration far more rigorously — in effect, taking back more control of their borders. Progressive parties are now duty bound to develop much smarter, compassionate policies to achieve precisely that.”
Colin Hines: “What is inadequately understood is that political discussions about reinterpreting ‘freedom of movement' to allow nation states to manage migration is already taking place across Europe. Such an emphasis in the UK would strengthen support for a ‘No Brexit' position, as the public is becoming increasingly uneasy about the present state of negotiations on leaving the EU.”
As the paper highlights, 2017 elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic have made this a pivotal issue for all centre left and Green parties, in a way that can no longer be ignored or deferred. And there are already welcome signals that both Labour and the Lib Dems are beginning to move in this direction as well, but they need to move far faster and far more proactively than is currently the case. As indeed does the Green Party.
Both Jonathon Porritt and Colin Hines believe that Brexit can be avoided, but that this will only happen when all three political parties address the immigration issue head on, reassuring people that we really can and must take back more control over our borders.”
And if that grabs your attention, check out the report itself.
Colin and I have written it both to address some ‘taboo territory' for the progressive left — and to start to undo some of the damage caused by the 2016 Referendum.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Better late than never!
Many refugees are economically inactive and yet many will have valuable skills. Is there not a way to assist them to become active?
Refugees are not the issue in this paper as I read it
Except that in many people’s minds the two are put together.
Good way to miss the point completely.
Robert Hill says:
November 10 2017 at 2:51 pm
“Many refugees are economically inactive and yet many will have valuable skills. Is there not a way to assist them to become active?”
Not really, as Richard points out, the issue here, but the answer is an emphatic yes to your question.
Firstly stop bombing people out of their homes and in the meantime find them somewhere to live. And stop pretending this a problem for the countries of southern Europe to deal with because that happens to be the most convenient place for refugees to land in Europe.
Also vastly increase the investment into the areas where refugees are escaping from so that their lives become tenable where they actually want to live and where they have their social and cultural roots.
Is this rocket science? I think not.
So in terms of regulation – they seem to be suggesting currrent rules (perhaps strengthened by future development of EU policy) plus McShane’s anti-exploitation proposal?
The UK governments of both stripes could have used the former – why didn’t they?
The Tory government could have used sanctions against the exploiting employers – LOLZ.
I’m somewhat surprised they are quoting Vince Cable, especially but not only the first clause –
“There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable, and the politics is conclusively hostile … I have serious doubts that the EU’s freedom of movement is tenable or even desirable.”
George S Gordon says:
November 10 2017 at 4:43 pm
” I have serious doubts that the EU’s freedom of movement is tenable or even desirable.”
I haven’t even read the piece yet, but if borders are transparent to capital they should be transparent to labour too.
Sauce goose….gander. No question. Not acceptable.
So why not restrict capital?
Why not restrict capital? Why not indeed, Richard?
The answer is because it’s not the neoliberal way.
George S Gordon says:
November 10 2017 at 4:43 pm
“…I’m somewhat surprised they are quoting Vince Cable,…..”
I’m quite surprised that anyone quotes Vince Cable.
The stupidity of where we are is that Brexit was a reaction to the years of uncontrolled and massive immigration started in the early Blair years from outside of Europe.
Brexit seeks to restrict intra European movement but does nothing about immigration from outside of Europe.
Now that my friends, is irony!
Wally says:
November 10 2017 at 8:52 pm
“The stupidity of where we are is that Brexit was a reaction to the years of uncontrolled and massive immigration started in the early Blair years from outside of Europe.
Brexit seeks to restrict intra European movement but does nothing about immigration from outside of Europe.”
That isn’t THE stupidity, Wally, It’s just one of a plethora of stupidities.
From something I was reading the other day, the underling problem stems from the basic flow of capital being from poor and developing states into the rich developed economies. Inevitably, would-be workers follow the money if they can.
Either the people must move or the Capital has to stop it’s untrammeled free-flow across borders.
In recent years ‘economic migrant’ has been allowed to become pejorative. Human beings have always been, and always will be economic migrants they will always (the enterprising ones) seek prosperity. If it were not so we’d all still be crammed shoulder to shoulder in the Great Rift valley (if you believe the anthropologist types that really is where we all came from)
I disagree. It was the accession of the East European countries which gave rise to the problem and the UK’s decision not restrict migration from these countries, which others did. No one that I can remember foresaw the dangers at the time.
Employers love these workers because they are more highly educated and skilled than most British, are prepared to work hard for minimum wage with no prospect of advance and are frightened to join a union or express their discontent. I know many Polish people – they are some of my best friends – and this is not a complaint about them.
This is one of the reasons why UK productivity is pathetic. There’s little incentive for businesses to invest in capital.
On the other side of the coin, Poland, etc. have been robbed of the human capital they created.
I share the central premise of the report: that there is a left wing case for saying that unrestricted immigration isn’t necessarily a good thing
However I’m not sure I would agree with their their central suggestion: “What we’re suggesting, in essence, is that all mainstream parties should commit to something along the lines of ‘no new, large-scale, permanent immigration’.”
It seems to me that all depends on the circumstances – social, cultural, moral and economic circumstances at any point in time. For instance the report makes the point that
“The irony here is telling. Many of the organisations in the vanguard of the fight against the worst
excesses of today’s neo-liberal globalisation are the ones that are most outspoken in favour of open borders. The fact that it is the self-same, self-serving elites that benefit most from an open borders, pro-globalisation position, goes unremarked.”
But that is only really an argument against migration that is driven by neo-liberal open borders.
I’d be very uncomfortably if the suggestion was to restrict the type of immigration that we have historically seen eg. Jewish immigration to the East End, Windrush immigration, immigration from the Indian sub-continent and a number of others.
It reminds me of Nietzsche and his maxim be willing to will what you want to also happen for all eternity. Ie. if we have become a country that didn’t want these type if immigrations to be repeated, then we should probably genuinely worry about what sort of country we are. But if what are are talking about is getting movement of labour laws with our neighbours right for us, then that is very different thing from ‘no new large scale permanent immigration’.
If you go to any kind of social event people will congregate where the buffet is. cf. the erstwhile popular song ‘You’ll always find me in the kitchen at a party’.
People are ‘only human’ and they climb the walls they can climb, and eventually they knock the buggers down if they can’t climb them where there is something on the other side which they crave.
The only way to prevent unwanted migration is to make everywhere fit to live.
A very interesting read.
The EU expansion eastwards has been massively mishandled. The fact that for each accession there were transition arrangements where it was possible for the existing members to impose migration controls was an admission of the issues that could be caused by poorer states joining the EU. There were a couple of problems with these arrangements: Firstly the Labour government declined to use them (a massive mistake). Secondly the transition period during which controls were allowed was not long enough to allow labour costs in the accession countries to increase sufficiently to reduce migration pressure.
The fact that the EU has for the most part seemed quite inflexible on freedom of movement reflects badly on it, as time-limited compromises on immigration controls would have mitigated the impacts at no eventual cost to the overall project of EU expansion. The appetite for compromise identified in the article is encouraging, but I fear it has come too late for the UK.
The resentment about immigration was stoked up by years of under-investment in public services and general economic mismanagement by a Conservative government that was pro-immigration (despite their protestations) and used the EU as a convenient scapegoat, despite the fact that half of the immigration was non-EU.
“…..general economic mismanagement by a Conservative government …..”
I think that should read:
“…..general economic mismanagement by conservative governments …..” Labour from 1997 was also deeply conservative in many of it’s policies.
Please remember it was Tony Blair who along with his cabinet colleagues who decided not to impose restrictions on the movement of labour with the enlargement of the EU to include Romania, Bulgaria etal. Contrast this with decisions made by France and Germany. You should not blame just the Tories when we should be targetting the neo-liberal establishment.
If this is a “difficult area for the left” and “taboo territory” it shouldn’t be. There is no credible excuse for the fact that “those on the progressive left (Labour, Lib Dems and the Green Party) had not the first idea how to deal with what turned out to be a deeply unpleasant debate about IMMIGRATION.”
1. Porritt & Hines are politically spot on in suggesting that any further ignoring or deferring of immigration concerns gives the alt-right nazis a much better shot at winning. It lets them own the issue.
2. Progressives in most nations should have policies that address immigration but they should not be about immigration per se. Immigration alone should not be an issue. It should, first and foremost be a be a key factor in the social and environmental debate about sustainable population. Overpopulation not only undermines the bioshere’s ability to sustain the growth of the economy, it also drives critical social stresses – quality of life issues such as gentrification and displacement.
3. Immigration is also a key factor in labour economics (although it is not the only factor and therefore not an issue in its own right) The Confederation of British Industry are very pro-
immigration and that is not because they are nice, altruistic people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-migration-figures-brexit-underscore-labour-shortage-risk-eu-immigration-job-market-economy-a7910306.html
Capitalists encourage steady growth in the supply of labour to keep it in continuous oversupply. That serves the purpose of suppressing wages (the price of labour). The old-school socialists (pre-WW2) understood this and addressed it. A failure to honestly confront that issue in the current era puts working class support in the hands of the racist, nationalist right because they are the political movement that openly discuss it. The new nazis find it too easy to exploit the vulnerability of low-paid workers and the inaction of their progressive opponents.
4. For progressives in most nations that would be the core of the discussion. In the EU there is, of course, the added complication of “freeedom of movement”. There are lot of positive things to be said about freedom of movement in the EU, mostly positive things. The problem with it stems from the fact that the EU is not a federated nation like the US or Canada. It has a monetary union but not all EU members are part of that union. It does not have a fiscal union. That raises big problems. Mercifully I won’t mention them all but, in this context, complications emerge when, for example, workers in some non-eurozone EU countries find that pay earned in sterling buys more in their home country than pay earned in euros. I don’t blame them for currency shopping. They are just trying to provide for their families and make the most of their opportunities. Nonetheless, there are many difficult but avoidable imbalances within the EU. They can be more easily addressed if they are not deferred, ignored or dumped in the too-hard basket.
All in all, the progressive left should have no difficulty in dealing with immigration issues. They can and should addressed within the context of Employment policy and (most importantly) Sustainable Population policy. These policies need not concern themselves with questions of race or culture. They are about survival, quality of life and numbers.
When I was studying Education at uni in the early 70’s I wrote an essay about what sort of teacher I wanted to be: a progressive teacher…(it was the “in” word at the time) The tutor wrote: Don’t use meaningless cliches.
I see there’s no reference to the situation in Scotland. Well, what do you expect !?
Latest from the Scottish Govt on EU Migrants: https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11975/scottish-economy-benefits-eu-workers-new-data-reveals
Sorry, don’t want Farage-Lite. The only possible issue I can see is the exodus of trained workers from poorer countries, but does no one remember the UK “Brain Drain” from the 50’s and 60’s? But that’s a problem the EU could fix by transferring wealth from rich countries to poorer ones, rather than what happens at present, and the UK is a prime example, where wealth is transferred from poorer areas to richer ones.
I don’t see this as Farage Lite
I think it’s a mistake to just dismiss the issue
The reality is we have always controlled migration. The left does need to say how and why
You are right to call out the adoption of the ‘progressive’ label to indicate unadulterated goodness. Bill Mitchell has faced criticism for pointing out many who call themselves ‘progressives’ are in fact standard bearers for the neo-liberal program.
Many on the supposed left are also well to the right in any terms used before 1980 as well
Another good point that is brought out in the report is the differences in the impacts of immigration on different classes of people. Many people that support immigration are not more progressive but are simply unaffected by it or indeed (as the report indicates) actually benefit from it from reduced costs for services they consume or the increase in the value of houses that they already own.
I have become really tired of questions about the impact of immigration on low-skilled labour rates and housing costs being answered by statements like: But immigrants are good for the economy (irrelevant to the question posed ). Immigrants pay more in tax than they take out in benefits (even more irrelevant – especially when we have a government that will not increase spending on infrastructure and services).
I’ve just downloaded the paper, and will print it off and go away to read it. It sounds as if it contains some interesting ideas, from the portion I’ve already read onscreen.
However, the third largest political party in the UK (with the third largest group of MPs) is the SNP–not the LibDems or the Greens or anybody else. They are also the party in government at Holyrood, and in charge of managing things like the NHS, which is impacted by immigration.
The SNP don’t seem to be getting a mention in this paper, though. Why? If the SNP and the Scottish government are left out of this discussion I hope there will be a good reason for doing so, made clear somewhere in the paper that I’ve not read yet. And I do hope the reason isn’t Corbyn’s idiotic notion that the SNP ‘isn’t progressive enough.’
I will kick the pair of them….
Please do.
It is not just the SNP; the word “Scotland” is only mentioned once in the paper, and that is with reference to a YouGov poll. Scotland, its perspective and it needs, are simply left out altogether.
This paper shows its purpose from a quite narrow British perspective that indeed works best by simply ignoring Scotland altogether (either it doesn’t matter, or it can be taken for granted what ‘progressive’ opinion is, or should be, there); but I suspect it is simply trying to adopt ownership of the intellectual property in the word “progressive” by assertion, and without actually earning it. It also seems to play to a Brexit theme that is indulgently anti-EU (playing to the gallery).
On a first quick run through, I am not impressed.
I think you need to get over a narrow perspective
And yes, it was written by two English men
With all due respect, I think you have missed my point (and indeed ‘the bigger picture’).
And I think you are doing so, spectacularly as you next comment illustrates
It seems to me that Porritt and Hines are attempting to define the word “progressive”, or rather redefine the term, in order to meet certain difficult political challenges in Britain that they wish to fix, or at least rationalise. I have counted the use of word “progressive” or its associates no less that 49 times in their paper, which runs to 28 pages, including two appendices. Are they trying to ‘proprietorise’ the word “progressive”? I think there is a case to answer.
John
So far you are obsessed with Scotland and a particular word
What about the issue?
Richard
Richard, you are not a disinterested observer. These are 2 friends and you are listed as having commented on the paper in draft.
Earlier, I called out the use of “Progressive” and John and Roger have further critiqued the use of this word, which is undefined and is, I suggested a meaningless cliche. This paper is written from an English perspective synonymous with the UK which is a common problem with English commentators. Anthony Barnett in “The Lure….” explains it well. I wonder if they have read his take on immigration? The UK actually consists of 4 Nations, perhaps they haven’t noticed, and they didn’t all vote the same way. I can’t find any reference to Northern Ireland. This isn’t careless, but bespeaks a larger problematic. Again, Barnett nails this.
The long analysis of opinion polling etc looks to me like populism (that’s why I said F-lite). Are we to simply bend to the will of Opinion Polling? If so we’ll bring back hanging for a start. We’ll never get rid of the monarchy for another.
Even if we say this paper is just about England, I don’t think it takes us anywhere. You clearly disagree.
You say John is obsessed with Scotland, well, I am Scottish and am extremely concerned about the effects Brexit will have on Scotland, and I agree with the Scottish Govt that we need more immigration, not less, and if we are to believe the “now you see it, now you don’t” secret paper, which does or doesn’t exist it’s going to be economic armageddon.
I admit I find this comment quite depressing and unhelpful. Instead of getting near discussing the issue you are doing what the left does so well – nit pickingly critique other commentators
First, I think the term progressive is self evidently defined in the context, and indeed in the context of the authors, both of whom have track records to show where they are. They use the term to challenge those who define themselves in that way wherever they are in the political spectrum – but will, pretty much universally, be on the left. The method of letting the reader define the term by their own association with it is to me wholly acceptable. Indeed, it is implicit in the use of the term in the Progressive Pulse blog of which I am a director and I think requires no more justification from the authors when used in this way
Second, I have shown some concvern fro Scotland this year and have written quite specifically about it. I am not unaware of the issues. But I also think that for anyone to think issues are specifically Scottish is wrong. As most issue are not specific to England. So, for example, my White Paper on Scottish Tax had very specific Scottish context and was very largely applicable in the rUK as well. If someone rejected it because it was written in a Scottish context that would be absurd. If this paper is written using an English example to illustrate larger issues, so what? Frankly, start seeing the bigger picture. If Scotland is to succeed it will need to. Tye paper is not ignoring Scotland. It is using English examples, not least because that is where most of its readers will be. But to suggest that means it is not relevant to Scotland is candidly absurd, and not even an argument in my view: it is instead to wholly miss the point.
Disagree with the argument by all means. But please don’t waste my time with issues that are not relevant to the examples used, just because they aren’t drawn from your particular narrative. Instead have the imagination to think how they might apply to it. You have offered nothing of that sort.
I always seek a solution focus. It would be great if others would.
Richard,
You have no grounds whatsoever for claiming I have an obsession with Scotland, simply because I challenged the enthusiasm over Porritt and Hines, and cited the virtually complete absence of Scotland from the paper. That is quite wrong. I do have grounds, however for my complaint of their over-use, even re-shaping of the term “progressive”. My assessment of numbers goes to the method used to shape the paper; repetition has rhetorical purpose, and 49 times in a paper of that size is far beyond accidental.
As I live in Scotland, and Scotland has enjoyed a very good relationship with the EU over immigration, and EU immigrants are very welcome here, I do not see the recent past as a problem. I also consider myself a European; and by that I mean a citizen of the EU. I lived near London for many years, and I always thought London had a similar view to Scotland, but that is anecdotal.
I cannot speak for the rest of Britain, nor do I wish to do so; but the system we had worked perfectly well for Scotland as far as I am concerned. I do not wish to change it.
As for your demand that I tackle the issue, quite seriously I am not entirely clear what Porrit and Hines actually propose; save to capture the term Progressive, so they could apply to this generalisation:
“Here in the UK, the idea of ‘taking back control’ shouldn’t be construed too negatively”.
No, it should be seen as progressive. The go on immediately to write:
“Being in control is not just about having the right to determine an upper limit on the numbers of migrants, but having the consequential freedom to warmly welcome new migrants into our communities and to ensure they become active, gainfully employed citizens of the UK.”
I do not understand the full implications that Porritt and Hines either want or expect from this, but from everything I have seen of the current British “taking back control” politics I have seen to date, my opinion remains negative.
Let me surmise, from my perspective of how things acaaully work here, what may actually happen in Britain. ‘Taking back control’ may (or may not) lead to fewer immigrants from the EU (who knows when that story has been spun out on an endless string), but in any case I do not believe that it will necessarily lead to many fewer immigrants (if I recall – and I admit I stand to be corrected, only around 50%+/- of immigrants are currently EU sourced, and I confess I have not checked back). I suspect that immigration will merely be redirected from non-EU sources (perhaps to sweeten a trade deal); although for many Scottish seasonal business and sectors this non-EU immigration will not solve the problem of the lost EU resource. This, of course is speculative, but you catch my drift.
You are broadly right on 50/50
And thanks for your comment
Thank you for this Richard – I will give it a read.
I expect it to enliven the discussion I have with people about this topic.
Marco – very interesting post – thank you.
With regard to immigration, it is the behaviour of companies using immigrants to arbitrage wages which is most reprehensible to me and where the problem lies. An employment system with better worker representation in the work place (Unions) and more effective labour laws would help to stop or reduce this.
What adds insult to injury is that wage arbitrage is just used to increase the rent stream to the rentier class. This is why we need longer term investment deals with investors as well as more realistic views on yields too.
The paper quotes a lot of surveys presenting negative attitudes to immigration but does not examine where those attitudes come from. It also notes the anomaly that those areas which are least effected by immigration are most against it. This would imply that the negative attitudes do not originate from actual contact with immigrants. My logical conclusion from this is that negative attitudes are the result of the constant stream of headlines from The Sun, Daily Mail and Express, rather than people’s real feelings. Do these “newspapers” reflect public opinion or are they pushing their own agenda?
Porritt and Hines do not make any mention of the possibility of the ‘immigration crisis’ being driven by the right wing press as part of the constant fearmongering deemed necessary to maintain circulation. They swallow the surveys whole. Yet YouGov etc. are also driven by the tabloids’ agenda.
An attempt at saying this all perception or propaganda, and no reality, is too convenient and seems to suggest you haven’t really read what Porritt, Hines or anyone here is currently saying about this.
When the point is made about migrants paying more into the Exchequer than they take out, the leavers will up and say that if we factor in the cost of their children’s education, housing benefit, tax credits ( where they still exist) and pressure on public services, they are a net drain.
What they overlook, in my humble opinion, is that this would apply to all lower paid workers, indigenous and migrant. They also overlook that without their labour, the better paid would have no or a lot less profit. The economy is interrelated.
I met Jonathon Porritt almost 40 years ago when he was a leading light in the Ecology party. An impressive young man.
The reality is that there would be no NHS without them
And much else too
And the argument they are a net drain is resoundingly disproved by evidence
Moreover, Ian
the whole idea of the “net contributor” or “net beneficiary” is a worthless, rank, uniquely British stupidity that originated (AFAIK) with the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
It is a worthless, embarrassing stupidity because it seeks to describe an individual’s presumed relationship with the economy and the state in purely fiscal (tax and spend terms). Astonishingly, this IFS concept completely overlooks the role of the private sector and assumes that it can isolate that which is fiscal from the rest of the economy, as if that which is fiscal is all that matters.
The economy is not purely fiscal. The private sector is and always has been, by far, the economy’s largest component. A worker or sole trader in a highly competitive, productive trade or industry may create a lot of output but still pay low tax because they receive a relatively low income. That is because their industry is efficient in competitive terms. It does not mean they are “beneficiaries”. Quite the opposite, being paid less than their productive worth reveals them as important contributors. By way of contrast a wealthy monopolist or speculator may be massively overpaid or produce absolutely nothing (or both). That does not make them a valuable contributor because their income tax may be higher, it simply reveals that the rent-seekers are living off the backs of the competitive and underpaid.
In Keynesian terms that is what is the tax and transfer aspect of the fiscal relationship is for – to redress the imbalances in the private sector, ensure social security and support aggregate demand. Its role in supporting demand is just one of the factors that reveals the inseparable nature of private and public contribution.
Furthermore, the apparent stupidity of the “net contributor” concept doesn’t end with those considerations. It should be obvious that a person that profits massively from owning or financing a national transport fleet (for example) should pay more to support roads and ports. Those that profit most from a highly educated workforce should pay more to support education etc. etc.
So Ian, when you say: “They also overlook that without their labour, the better paid would have no or a lot less profit. The economy is interrelated” you are right on target but just scratching the surface. What you have identified is one of the most thoughtlessly well-accepted but appallingly ill-conceived notions that appears in the British political discourse.
What never gets mentioned in the debate over Brexit EU economic migration is the psychology of the matter in regard to ultra-social human beings need for social validation. Sean Parker, former president of the “social” media app Facebook hits directly on the issue when talking about the reasoning behind the development of Facebook. To quote from Sean Parker’s article:-
“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them, … was all about how do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible? And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you more likes and comments. It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”
https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-2508036343.html?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Well what if subconsciously we get uneasy when we can’t easily get our social validation from people who don’t look like us but mainly find it hard to understand them because our language isn’t their “mother” tongue? Don’t the British do a lot of acknowledgement (a form of social validation you’re not a threat) of each other as complete strangers just by talking about the UK’s highly variable weather? In the modern day United States this “social validation” thing isn’t a big deal because everybody’s raised to celebrate the US as a “big melting pot” of different nationalities or ethnic groups whereas Britain with its aggressive imperialist past that regarded other nationalities as inferior still has a mentality along way from a “melting pot” one!
I was in New York at the 9/11 Memorial on the day nearly two weeks ago when about a third of a mile away an Islamic terrorist struck and killed eight people and injured many others. He was engaged in an act of reverse social validation he was killing sinners!
Good link.
I’ll read the paper with interest. I have to say, I am sceptical of left-wing arguments for more controls on immigration; for me, the left is internationalist or it is nothing. If anything we should be arguing for *fewer* controls, on the grounds of international social justice.
In terms of the wage impacts of EU immigration to the UK, it’s worth noting that there has been a lot of research on this over the last 10 years or so, and very few studies have found any appreciable negative impact. For sure, the performance of average UK wages in the last decade has been abysmal but this looks like it is due to more deep-seated structural problems in the British economy. Immigration is a decoy used by the far-right press to scapegoat workers from other countries for British capitalism’s own manifest failings. It’s important for the left not to add credibility to these wafer-thin arguments.