I've now lived the UK for around two years but every time I encounter it I am baffled by the amount of euro-bashing, euro-fearing and euro-scepticism that I encounter.
First off it certainly doesn't help that the populist parties, with an easy to grasp message that appeals to large audiences are also the most euro-sceptic out there. I firmly believe that without UKIP and BNP's spread of false rumours of the EU British citizens would have a much more reasoned view. But I just cannot grasp why the more mainstream parties (a.k.a. Labour, the Tories) have also succumbed to the charm of the EU as a scapegoat.
The current political class, it seems to me, is hiding behind the EU to explain their failure or incapacity to address pressing domestic issues. To answer for high unemployment they point towards the inflow of immigrants from Eastern European states and claim that they abuse the UK's general welfare system. This is just not true. Firstly, immigrants from Eastern Europe coming to the UK are simply more willing to take jobs that UK workers would not be satisfied with. This isn't stealing someone's job this is fulfilling a vital need for society that no one else will. Secondly, immigrants (from all over the world) are in fact less likely to claim on benefits that the British unemployed (I can find the Economist article I sourced this from if people want me to). Additionally, immigration from Eastern Europe in the UK has actually been very limited and below official estimates. Lastly, although much of the immigration to the UK is of low-skilled workers, it also provides major boosts to the labour force and intellectual capacity of the United Kingdom. The message here is not that the UK is wrong, immigration can put undue stress on social institutions such as the NHS, but politicians need to nuance their message.
There also seems to be strong resentment towards the European Union for stealing British money, and again that is somewhat absurd. British contributions to the European Union were much higher in the past and have been repeatedly cut under pressure from successive British governments. Furthermore, it seems bizarre that there would be such a high level of discontent with a policy that really is just the application of basic income redistribution at the European level that has benefits for everyone. The fact that the new members of the European Union can benefit from aid from the European Union provides a) new markets for British goods within the EU, benefiting British trade; b) ensures that new entrants can't be a burden on anybody else (for those that point to Greece, the country was added in the 1st round of enlargement with Ireland and Spain and the UK was all for it). As for other uses of the money, well the EU just needs to be able to run, and the money countries give to the EU is much like a tax paid for citizens. And just like tax revenue is necessary to run welfare states, money is needed from the UK to run the commission, parliament, and European Court of Justice. Moreover, the European Union has never forced the British to do anything! When the British opposed the adhesion to the Euro, we allowed them to opt out! When the Schengen Agreements were signed we allowed the UK to opt out and keep border control.
Plus there just seems to be a complete disregard for the benefits that the European Union has brought to the United Kingdom. Europe is Britain's largest trading partner and has helped fuel and accelerate British growth up to the sovereign debt crisis, and its just too easy to reap the benefits and then back out when times get hard. The free movement of labour has allowed many British nationals to find jobs or settle abroad without the hassle of officially immigrating. As much as people can now work in the UK, British people can work in Belgium, France, and Germany! The fact that the European Union has managed interest rates through the ERM I and II as well as the Euro has helped stabilise exchange rates in the whole of Europe which has been a huge boost for trade, British and other. The common tariffs imposed to non-members also helps British industry as will the potential signing of a unprecedented free-trade agreement with the United States. On top of all this the European Union is the single biggest market in the world, topping even the United States and that gives it power in institutions such as the IMF or WTO; power that it uses to further interests of the Community as a whole, including the economic interests of Great Britain.
To conclude, yes times are hard and the European Union is in crisis, but now is not the time for anyone to back out. What we need is stronger integration. Britain, and France need to accept that their best interests lie in more ties with the rest of Europe through agreements for common fiscal policy as well as defence and foreign policy. Only through sticking together will we whether the current sovereign debt crisis. But, if the British people feel that strongly that the EU has wronged them, then let the UK feel free to leave completely, but I strongly believe that the position of the UK should be renegotiated. Its time for the UK to decide and either its in or its out, but it can't sit on the fence anymore.
P.S. as a quick quip, remember the fact that Scotland won't be able to join just like that might be one of the reasons you get to hold on to your North Sea Oil.
Comments:
ReplyDelete1. Where do you encounter so much Euro-bashing?
2. "The current political class, it seems to me, is hiding behind the EU to explain their failure or incapacity to address pressing domestic issues."
Yes they are failing on many domestic issues, but I'm not really sure I see either of the leading parties hiding behind the EU to excuse their failures. Outside of UKIP (since the BNP have largely now been ignored by the media) and some of Cameron's comments to appease the Eurosceptic wing of his party, I don't really see much anti-European sentiment in Westminster. Yes the Tories mention that we've lost some of our legislative integrity every so often but it's really not that much. The Conservatives and Labour certainly don't use it as their go-to scapegoat, they prefer "the economic mess we were left in by the last Labour government", which New New Labour have attempted to distance themselves from.
3. "Firstly, immigrants from Eastern Europe coming to the UK are simply more willing to take jobs that UK workers would not be satisfied with. This isn't stealing someone's job this is fulfilling a vital need for society that no one else will."
True it's not stealing and true the jobs are vital. Yet I believe often the reasons for natives not taking certain jobs are valid, (a) lack of skills and (b) low pay.
(a) Take healthcare, there has been long-term, chronic underfunding of nursing. Far easier and cheaper to pluck those already educated off a tree from the Philippines or Slovenia than to educate our own. I vividly remember sitting in on a meeting with a Birmingham MP and the Health Minister a few years ago where the MP was complaining that she had hundreds of girls in her constituency who would love to/be perfectly eligible to be nurses but for lack of govt. training schemes. Re. doctors, the BMA limits the number of medical students there can be at any one time (I can find the citation if you want) keeping supply low and therefore their premium high. This leads to a doctor deficit which needs to be plugged by, lo and behold, immigrants. Therefore on both these counts if the govt. was willing to spend the money training more doctors and nurses (and persuading the BMA to admit more students) there wouldn’t be a lack of skills. The govt. chooses a situation where immigrant must fulfil a ‘vital need for society that no one else’ can.
(b) The CEO of Domino’s recently complained that he “… has been unable to fill 1,000 vacancies since migration rules were tightened up,” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25321113). UK citizens are not willing to work for wages as low as the minimum wage since they simply cannot live off of it. One cannot pay a mortgage, feed yourself and raise children on £6.31/hr (min wage for over 21s = £11,484 per year), yet individual young immigrants who are willing to live with no dependents and experience a lower quality of life than most British people can live on this wage. However, if they do not send money back home with a view to returning after a few years, then they will want to put down roots and raise a family, by which time they will require more than £6.31/hr. There are too many temporary and low paid jobs in Britain, jobs which can only be filled in the short-term by exploiting an immigrant work force – it is the government’s duty to either provide more high paying jobs or encourage the growth of businesses to provide them. Immigrants, therefore, are willing to take these jobs not because British people won’t take them, but because they can’t.
1) If I'm completely honest I have encountered it mostly in propaganda posters and in news articles talking about the advance of UKIP in the polls and people voting for them out of discontent.
Delete2) In terms of hiding behind the EU I feel that the fact that Cameron only had to call a EU referendum in order to appease people is indicative of how poorly the EU has been portrayed in the UK. And that portrayal comes from the fact that the UK has been claiming ever since Thatcher that the EU is taking British money which is preventing government creation. And yes, the Tories have made only a few comments, but that's what counts. Furthermore, Labour is considering holding the referendum as well because they know that they can blame the EU if all else fails. Of course I also agree that, like in every country, the government is also awfully good at blaming past governments for current problems.
3) I agree with you the jobs available are low skill and menial which is not to the standard of a British educated worker, but that just reinforces my point that immigrants are needed to fill those jobs, just imagine if no one collected the garbage... or became doctors. All I am arguing is that immigrants are vital to British society and its just too easy to blame them for hard times or the EU for that matter. As for the minimum wage problem that is a problem that is systematic to the UK rather than the EU specifically because the UK has been so resistant, amongst others of course, to pass full control of minimum wage setting and labour regulation to European Union institutions. In addition, I believe that the EU and its regulatory apparatus has the ability to help the UK address the issue of a minimum wage that is too low through social regulation at the European level.
4. “Additionally, immigration from Eastern Europe in the UK has actually been very limited and below official estimates”
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is the case for very recent immigration, but Blair sold us Polish (and other accession countries) entrance to the EU on the basis that we could expect only 15,000 per year whereas around 700,000 have stayed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9702416/Del-Boy-Blair-peddles-immigration-myths.html ).
5. “Politicians need to nuance their message.”
Totally agree, but is this a problem of 21st C., soundbite politics? Or just that the electorate isn’t up for very in-depth, balanced discussions about immigration and the EU?
6. “The free movement of labour has allowed many British nationals to find jobs or settle abroad without the hassle of officially immigrating”
Applies largely to a very specific (upper middle and upper class) section of the electorate, since the standard of living in Britain is already very high and therefore there isn’t really much ‘need’ for the majority of the population to leave to elsewhere unlike many would argue there is in other, esp. Southern, European countries.
7. I don’t disagree with the majority of your points, yes we should stay in, maybe we shouldn’t adopt the Euro (is there a necessity for our monetary independence considering how heavy the financial sector weighs on our economy?), ideologically I’m a massive fan of it.
Questions:
- Do you really think that things like fiscal integration can happen this fast considering the Euro only came into being a decade or so ago?
- Don’t you think that we should focus on bringing the Southern economies up to speed a bit with their Northern counterparts before we even attempt more integration?
- Do you think that a single currency over such a large area works? (I guess Russia’s pretty big and it works there, but it’s not exactly a top economy to model ourselves on).
4) Even though immigration from Poland has been huge there is strong evidence that suggest that such immigrants have given more in terms of tax revenue to the government than they have taken in terms of aid and social welfare. All in all they are helping the economy
Delete5) I agree with both these points and feel additionally that the European Union through the European Social Fund could help the UK change its message on the EU and increase voter participation, transparency and understanding of European politics and its benefits for the UK
6) very true but refer to point 4
7) I think you should adopt the Euro and that it would give you a platform to in fact enhance the status of the City of London. I strongly believe that the UK would be able to negotiate to have the ECB and other European Financial Institutions moved to London which is the bigger and more developed financial platform in Europe. However, British resistance is mostly just pushing firms towards Frankfurt and its ease of use and scope through the single currency.
I do think that fiscal integration has happened to fast, but a) this is mostly due to the necessities of the financial and sovereign debt crises that have required a huge increase in the pace of integration and b) that we can't go back on what we have already done without destroying the EU and that therefore the solution is more integration rather than a return of power to domestic governments.
I think that integration is the way to achieve this convergence between Southern and Northern states. Closer integration would also give European Institutions more oversight on the spending of Southern governments which would ensure that European funds are used sensibly and to the best effect. I believe that dialogue in the midst of integration is also likely to result in more willing cooperation between North and South that through conditions imposed in bailouts or austerity programs.
I think there is strong evidence that it works with the most notable example being the US. But, like the US, I believe that its true success lies in closer integration along a federation of confederation style model like the US or Switzerland rather that the piecemeal approach we have used so far.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhilst your article seems for the most part reasonable and to reflect some of my own views, one argument that seems a bit dodgy is the claim that a lot of the EU budget is spent on 'basic income redistribution'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication of this is that we are taking money from the better off (taxpayers) and giving it to the worse off as a form of subsidy - which is completely laudable. Now it is true that this does go on, and impoverished areas of the UK receive much of the benefit, but you seem to imply that is the main direction of EU spending. However the elephant in the room is the (I believe) between 30-40℅ of the budget spent on the CAP. Whatever your views on the CAP, it seems fairly reasonable to suggest that giving huge subsidies to people who by definition own huge amounts of land is in no way basic income redistribution in the sense of giving to the less well off in society.
ReplyDeleteSubsidizing agriculture is not an unambiguously negative thing to do (although I personally have strong feelings against it in this case), but surely a country's opinion of 40% of what the budget is spent on should influence whether or not they stay (and hence really ought to merit a place in your article, although it might struggle to squeeze in amongst the blue and gold starred unicorns and rainbows ;) )
The exact figure is around 30% of the budget is spent currently on the CAP, but what you have to take into account is that this percentage is down from 90% in the 1970's. In addition the proportion of the EU budget being redistributed to smaller economies is around 46% of the budget, a significant amount more than what is spent on CAP
DeleteBut in the end I do agree with you that CAP is a point of contentions. It was originally introduced because France has demanded it as it had, at the time, a strong competitive advantage in agriculture compared to the original member states and hence wanted to ensure that that continued despite integration.
In my opinion the CAP should be renegotiated and lowered substantially, that would lower food prices which would appease the qualms of the British about unnecessarily high food prices and would ensure that France addressed the more structural problems with its economy such as ensuring industry becomes competitive rather than just forking money at a frankly minor part of society (and of GDP). The CAP is furthermore fundamentally wasteful with tons of milk and other farm produce being simply thrown out as Europe continuously produces surplus that are of no use.
Thanks for bringing this up and giving me a chance to say what I thought :P
The fact that 90% of the (much smaller) old budget used to be spent on the CAP doesn't detract from the significance of 30% still being spent on it, and I would agree with renegotiation for precisely the reasons you outline, removing import tariffs on 3rd world agricultural exports, as well as reducing budget expenditure.
DeleteI was interested to see your thoughts on this issue, and would like to emphasize that I feel this is something that tends to be left out of all debate, your column is far from unique in not discussing it. In fact your column takes a better view than many in at least looking at some of the budget breakdown. From what I've seen many Eurosceptics seem to think the money sent to the EU just vanishes.