Europe | Patterns of Power

Democracy under attack

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the truck attack on a Berlin Christmas market on Monday, 19 December 2016. Angela Merkel, in a televised broadcast, expressed concern that immigrants might be blamed – and the anti-immigrant Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has done just that. Angela Merkel faces an election next year, in which AfD is strongly placed to become Germany’s largest political party – and the Berlin truck attack will help it to do so.

It isn’t only Angela Merkel’s political party that is under attack, and ISIS isn’t the only attacker. The whole of Western liberal democracy is under a 3-way attack: from an Islamic terrorist jihad to set up a universal caliphate, from a wave of anti-establishment authoritarian populism, and from Russian interference with elections. These three directions of attack are not coordinated, but are nonetheless helping each other to undermine Western democracies and the EU.

ISIS is trying to polarise society. It wants headlines, Western indignation and condemnation of Islam – so that more Muslims will join its cause in what it presents as a conflict between civilisations. It did not have to arrange for the truck attack. It merely had to radicalise an individual, provoking the attack, and then claim responsibility for it.

Authoritarian populism is a style of political leadership which feeds on people’s discontent with their current situation. That discontent might come from job losses due to globalisation, from liberalisation in society’s attitudes on gender, from gross financial inequality, or from multiculturalism. Donald Trump, AfD and Nigel Farage can all be categorised as authoritarian populists. Some of their supporters have reacted to multiculturalism by supporting ‘alt-right’ racial supremacists, whose views are similar to Nazism.

It has been alleged that Russia influenced the US presidential election by hacking into email servers, and Internet attacks on German political parties have also been traced to Russia. It has also been alleged that Russia is sponsoring the spread of disinformation on Internet social media. Disinformation is an effective way of swinging elections: Breitbart used it to help Trump be elected and is about to launch a German site. It has been suggested that Russia is also using disinformation as a political tool, to promote nationalism and to undermine the EU and NATO.

It is easier to describe the problem than to propose a solution. The European Union was initially established to counteract the forces of nationalism and fascism that had led to the Second World War, but it and its members are now experiencing this 3-way attack. Sadly, the EU is no longer seen by many people as a force for peace. There is some justification for the accusations levelled at it: bloated bureaucracy, failing to listen to the people and the pursuit of a political dream that seems to threaten the autonomy of its members. It is clearly imperfect, and unless it starts to address the population’s real concerns it is likely to collapse – but now it is needed more than ever.

Britain post-Brexit

The British people have voted to leave the EU: a ‘Brexit’. They were persuaded to do so by a powerful compound of populism, dishonesty and the arrogance of some politicians. This website has already commented on the first two of these factors. Populism, in the case of Brexit, exploited the deep discontent felt by many in England and Wales who now distrust the political class and, feeling that they have been ignored, wanted change – without properly examining whether that change would be for the better. The dishonesty shown by both sides in the debate was arguably worse on the Leave side, as reported by Nick Cohen in the Guardian for example.

The third factor, arrogance, has been most clearly exhibited by Michael Gove. He has repeatedly derided the views and calculations of experts, preferring instead to trust his own untutored instincts and expecting others to agree with him. He has a vision of a proud and independent Britain, governed by a political system that is totally in the control of its population. His arguments, though, are flawed – as already noted on this website. He seems to have failed to take into account three major issues: globalisation, the nature of agreements with other countries, and the depth of detail required to enable trading in a true single market. He is articulate and persuasive, and he probably influenced Boris Johnson’s decision to join the Leave campaign (the two men dined together the night before Boris declared his position on Brexit). It looked as though the two men were a strong partnership but Boris, in his first column for the Telegraph after the result had been declared, suggested that he understood how close our relationship with Europe needs to be; this did not line up exactly with Michael Gove’s vision of independence, so the latter chose to make a bid for the leadership and Boris withdrew. Going forward from this point, Britain will have to come to terms with the three issues that Michael Gove appears not to have fully understood.

Globalisation affects every country in the world (except, perhaps, North Korea). Many companies are free to set up business wherever they find the most attractive combination of labour costs, technical competencies and regulatory environment. British labour costs are much higher than those in developing countries, but it has demonstrable technical capabilities and it is not stifled by too much regulation. It has therefore attracted inward investment, but some of that has depended upon its access to the European Single Market. Post-Brexit, companies might choose Ireland (or perhaps an independent Scotland) as an alternative English-speaking base in the EU. And Frankfurt would be only too keen to take more of the financial services business, especially trading in euros.

The nature of agreements with other countries is that they involve rules. When one joins a club, or signs a treaty, or reaches an agreement, one is also accepting the relevant rules. One cannot unilaterally change those rules, except by withdrawing. Michael Gove’s vision of a British democracy, which can dismiss its own government, fails to take into account that Britain will never be solely in charge of the rules of any agreement it makes (although Britain’s EU membership at least gave it an equal say in setting those rules). Sovereignty will, therefore, always be partly constrained by the agreements previously reached by British governments. Another problem with Gove’s vision is that separate agreements would be needed for all the countries of the world, so Britain would need a substantial bureaucracy to establish and manage these separate trade agreements – whereas within the EU, the overall bureaucracy is reduced by centralising it in Brussels.

Britain’s treaties with the EU are much deeper in scope than trading agreements with other countries. The EU treaties comprise a complex set of agreements covering trade, the environment and human rights. This website argued for our continued membership of the EU on the grounds of its benefits to Britain and to Europe. Having decided to leave the EU, a different relationship will have to be developed. Boris Johnson appears to have at least partly understood that this will involve complying with many EU requirements, perhaps trying to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) – although that would entail accepting free movement of labour. Remaining in the EEA might also satisfy some of Scotland’s concerns, thereby avoiding a Scottish secession which would make Britain’s future even more uncertain.

The future of Britain post-Brexit is now in the hands of the contenders for the leadership of the Conservative party, one of whom will become Prime Minister and will be responsible for negotiating Britain’s new place in the world. Michael Gove doesn’t yet seem to see that compromises will have to be made. Theresa May has shown herself to be very adaptable during the referendum campaign, not antagonising either side, so she is well-positioned in the leadership contest. If she were to win, and become our next Prime Minister, perhaps she would be similarly pragmatic in her dealings with an EU that is understandably offended by Britain’s behaviour. It is to be hoped that other Europeans don’t think that all Britons are like Nigel Farage, given his unpardonable rudeness in the European Parliament after the referendum result.

Our next Prime Minister will have to find some way of steering between the requirements of Europe’s single market and Britain’s concerns about immigration. A growing economy needs labour. It is probably better to allow economic immigration than to reduce economic growth to a level which doesn’t require any immigrants, but it could be better managed than at present. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the question of identity cards in Britain, which could be linked to work permits. It is also necessary to make it incumbent upon local authorities to provide adequate accommodation and public services if they want to let employers expand in their areas. Situations like that in Shirebrook, for example, are totally unacceptable. People need a right to appeal against local authority failures in these matters, and without that there is little hope of allaying legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration.

Britain needs a Prime Minister and a government which attends to the concerns of all parts of the United Kingdom, Leavers and Remainers, rich and poor – and which understands the need for partnership with other countries, despite the compromises that are necessary.

Why Britain should remain in the EU

We live in a connected world. Britain will always be affected by what happens in Europe. More than 40% of our trade goes to the EU. We are geographically close, so we are affected by the same environmental issues, and Europe’s political and economic stability matter to us.

It makes sense for us to collaborate constructively with our neighbours: remaining in the EU, helping its rules to evolve, and strengthening it by being members. Our EU membership was the result of a democratically-approved UK decision to co-operate with the EU on matters of common interest; it gives us influence on trading rules and other matters that would affect us even if there were a ‘Brexit’. The British people have a democratic voice equal to that of the other members and our elected politicians share in EU decision-making.

Britain has tariff-free trading with EU members and it benefits from the EU’s bilateral trade deals with some other countries; otherwise it trades globally under (less advantageous) WTO tariff rules. Other economies in the world are growing more rapidly, but the EU remains an important market. Strong customer relationships have developed over 43 years of membership. Most economists believe that leaving the EU would damage the UK economy. New negotiations would be needed with the EU and all its trading partners. The economy of the EU, our biggest customer, would suffer from a smaller market and the loss of British influence if we were no longer a member.

European citizens are granted rights of free movement between member countries, as part of the single market; over half of Britain’s immigrants now come from Europe. Existing EU law prevents such migrants from burdening their host’s social security system, and Britain’s EU reform deal clarifies how that would work in practice, but immigration is problematic. It has increased the UK population, giving some people cause for concern, but it has brought overall economic benefits.

Politicians should focus on fixing any pressures on housing and public services instead of leaving the EU and closing our borders. Immigration should not be subject to arbitrary national targets. It should be managed regionally, according to the availability of work and accommodation. For example, the BBC reported that Sports Direct was allowed to expand in the Derbyshire town of Shirebrook without upgrading housing and public services; then there were problems when a flood of immigrants arrived from Eastern Europe. The company should have been denied planning permission, or the town’s infrastructure should have been upgraded. The problem in this case was not EU immigration but local political failure – as reported by Chad.

There are many in the EU who want it to develop into a superstate, but the UK can remain separate from that. We have the best of both worlds. We co-operate with the other members on free trade, collaborative policing and joint regulation of the environment, but we avoid the loss of political and financial independence that comes with membership of the Eurozone’s single currency.

EU members are committed to standards of human rights that stretch beyond the EU and are enforced by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). This legal framework protects all Europeans from government malpractice; it helped the Hillsborough families to expose a police cover-up and obtain justice, for example, and it has upheld press freedom, prevented torture etc. The UK and other governments established these rights to prevent the fascist oppression of minorities, such as that which led up to the Second World War. A recent resurgence of far-right politics in Europe indicates that vigilance must continue.

As a collective voice, the EU can wield considerable soft power; it has more diplomatic legitimacy than its separate countries with their colonial pasts. In international affairs, Britain’s most useful role is to support the EU’s collective influence to promote stability. Britain would not contribute to a European army, though, to avoid undermining NATO; as EU members, we would veto it, as the government has stated.

A vote to leave the EU would increase the power of a small group within Britain’s political establishment: the leaders of the Brexit campaign, who are misleading the public. A vote to leave is to choose to bury our heads in the sand, in the vain hope that we can isolate ourselves from Europe; it would lead to political, cultural and economic shrinkage. A vote to remain is to choose to co-operate with our neighbours to build a better future for the whole continent.

The Impacts of Immigration

Immigration affects everyone’s lives and it can rapidly become a toxic issue. It is driven by economic pressures or by humanitarian concerns: to take in refugees fleeing conflict or persecution. In destination countries, the arrival of strangers for either reason is a sensitive matter but politicians should be concerned with managing the effects rather than trying to exploit people’s fears in order to win votes and gain power. It warrants careful discussion of its economic, political, moral, legal and security aspects so that it can be appropriately managed to avoid practical problems and social tensions.

Some people from other countries are recruited by employers who need specific skills, but other economic migrants are job-seekers desiring a better life. Refugees also need jobs. If the economy can absorb all the immigrants without creating unemployment, as has been the case in both the UK and the US, the result is economic growth. UK unemployment in May 2016 was the lowest for a decade, as a proportion of the working-age population, suggesting that immigrants hadn’t taken people’s jobs.

People’s other economic concerns about immigration include the perceptions that immigrants drive down wages and that they impose a financial burden on the economy. These fears are rarely justified, since the minimum wage protects the lowest-paid and economic migrants have to go home if they fail to find work. Free movement of labour, as with the flexibility within the EU or the US, enables large diverse economies to develop naturally and respond to changes in circumstances; it is an economic benefit, and constraints on immigration choke economic growth.

Politicians’ responsibilities include ensuring that housing, education and health services are all capable of accommodating the immigrants; they are equally accountable to both the immigrants and the native population. If politicians complain about immigrants, they are acknowledging their own failures. If they are not personally responsible for solving the problems, or don’t have control over the relevant agencies, it is worth asking why they are employed at all. It is an admission of incompetence to complain about problems that they are paid to solve.

There may be moral and social concerns about immigrants – especially if they have different values – as is often the case with asylum-seekers; this is less of an issue with the economic migration within Europe, though, where all the member countries have signed up to the European Charter of Human Rights. Immigrants change the character of the areas they live in. Provided that they speak the language, behave in a socially acceptable fashion and obey the law, they don’t present a tangible threat to their neighbours. They are entitled to freedom of belief, and should not be required to change their religion, but they may need to change some practices in order to comply with the host society’s laws, human rights and conceptions of how people should behave. What may have been acceptable in their countries of origin might not be acceptable in the societies they have arrived in, but minorities can resolve contradictions in values and avoid giving offence.

There are moral reasons for people to behave well towards immigrants: all religions and common decency enjoin acceptable behaviour towards others. People have only to ask themselves how they would act if they were in the same situation as the immigrants and how they would like to be treated. Cultural pluralism is inevitable in today’s world and, for people of different cultures to live in harmony with each other, it is necessary to show respect towards those of different race, religion, ideology, gender, sexuality and nationality. Some cultural groups, though, form tight clusters which diverge from the wider society and create tensions; the Cantle Report on Social Cohesion, which examined this problem, identified some remedies. Needless to say, it is in immigrants’ own interests to try to fit into the host society.

Immigration has legal and security aspects, which differ between refugees and economic migrants. Strictly speaking, refugees who are at risk in their native countries have no legal right to claim asylum in the country of their choice, although there is a collective international commitment to protect them; if their reasons for fleeing are found to be genuine, they cannot legally be returned to their countries of origin if they would be at risk of persecution.

With regard to economic migrants, countries in the European Economic Area have signed treaties that accept the free movement of labour as being a necessary feature of a single market, but sections 10 and 16 of the relevant EU directive prevent such migrants from being a drain on the benefit system of the destination country and section 22 of that directive allows restrictions “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health”. Countries outside the EU are not legally committed to take in economic migrants.

Some immigrants are security threats, but so are some of the native population; a country’s security services have to be geared to protect the population against anyone who is a threat to others. Background checks are needed on everyone who is entering a non-Schengen country, or is entering the Schengen zone from outside it; intelligence sharing is necessary to facilitate such checks. Countries have the legal right to expel any immigrant who is a security threat, provided that the person concerned would not be placed in danger by repatriation.

Laying blame on peaceful immigrants is a risky tactic. It can cause hostility towards minorities who have lived in the country for generations, potentially leading to uncontrollable violence. Intolerance should be swiftly condemned, because it is all too easy to foment ethnic strife. Politicians who complain about immigration are creating problems instead of solving them; they certainly shouldn’t be rewarded at the ballot box.

EU Accountability

Michael Gove emotively argued that the EU lacks democratic accountability and that Britain should therefore leave it: a ‘Brexit’. This argument would only be valid if the EU were in some way governing Britain, but the reality is that Britain and other members have only agreed to allocate some aspects of governance to the EU. For example, the EU has no jurisdiction over most aspects of tax, government spending or going to war. It affects only those aspects of British governance which have an impact on other European countries. Some ambitious and over-confident politicians, though, find it irksome to yield to any external regulation. They would prefer to negotiate multiple bilateral agreements, despite the time and cost of doing this with every country in the world.

If an agreement is negotiated between several countries, the accountability for it is shared. No single country’s electorate can dismiss the appointed administrators, or reverse collective decisions, but all the countries involved have oversight of the decision-making process. The EU provides a collective framework for regulating trade within a large and diverse geographical area, with some implications for human rights and the environment. Multiple regulations are required, springing largely from the desire for a single market.

The Great Depression in the 1930s was largely caused by protectionism: countries put up trade barriers against each other and thereby restricted economic growth for all of them. That experience illustrated the benefit of collectively removing the barriers to trade, requiring trading partners to agree standards and regulation. Europe’s diverse cultures and tendencies towards conflict present a very difficult arena in which to take collective decisions but the benefits of free trade are well-known. Britain, with its history of being a trading nation, eventually joined the Common Market to reap those benefits and its economy improved dramatically as a result.

Free trade can, if unregulated, adversely affect workers. It is possible to have a race to the bottom: for companies to try to cut costs by exploiting people. Workers want to be protected but commercial companies chafe against the resulting regulations. It doesn’t help the workers if a company is driven out of business, but it can be too easy for companies to exploit people’s need for work and their reluctance to move far away from their family and friends. Those politicians whose parties receive large company donations have a conflict of interest in such matters.

The free movement of labour within the single market is an essential safety valve for both employers and workers. Successful companies need more workers, who may not be available locally. Some workers want to be able to move if they have inadequate employment prospects where they live. Given that technical change is happening increasingly rapidly, and that globalisation is resulting in some industries becoming uncompetitive, employment prospects are constantly shifting; the free movement of labour within the EU is therefore essential and there is no reason why its members would agree to Britain having an exemption.

Freedom of movement requires agreements on some aspects of human rights across Europe: people would be effectively prevented from moving if they had inadequate socio-economic rights in the destination country. The overall scope of European Human Rights is, however, much wider and is not directly linked to EU membership. Russia, for example, has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and submits to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights; those rights were agreed after the Second World War, as a safety mechanism against fascism, to prevent governments from oppressing minorities.

The environment also needs some collective regulation within Europe to make the single market work properly. Without regulation, companies could start a race to the bottom on environmental standards in order to compete with each other. A company might save money by dumping effluent into a nearby stream, for example; that would adversely affect the people living nearby, or in adjoining countries, whilst the company concerned would undercut the costs of more tightly-regulated competitors.

Some politicians and some companies want to have the benefits of free trade with Europe without submitting themselves to the associated collective regulation. This is unrealistic. Certainly, trade would continue if Britain leaves the EU – but not on such favourable terms. If, like Norway, Britain agreed to the regulations without participating in defining them, it would then pay a slightly reduced subscription. The various trading options have been published.

Michael Gove’s characterisation of the EU, as democratically unaccountable, is misleading; its accountability is not solely to the British electorate because it is dealing with matters which have to be collectively decided. It only deals with matters that affect more than one country. Britain has as much control over the EU as any other member, and could play a leading role if it chose to be a good team player rather than behaving like a spoilt child.

The campaign for a Brexit

Now that David Cameron has finished his negotiations on Britain’s place in the EU, the Vote Leave campaign is gathering momentum. Eurosceptic Cabinet Ministers are free to make their case. Michael Gove has made a very clear statement on why he thinks that Britain ought to leave the EU: a ‘Brexit’. Boris Johnson, having talked to Gove and having made his own political calculations, is also campaigning to leave. There are serious weaknesses in their arguments though, and they are ignoring Scotland’s likely demand for independence if Britain were to leave the EU.

Michael Gove argues that Britain should take control of all its own decisions; he accuses the EU of democratic unaccountability. He criticises its policies on refugees. He cites examples of what he sees as over-regulation. He also argues that Britain would be more prosperous outside the EU. These are persuasive arguments, each worthy of some attention, but he does not tell the whole story.

He puts a nationalist case, arguing that Britain should recover its sovereignty, despite the fact that we would continue to be affected by the decisions of other countries – as The Economist has pointed out. He praises Britain’s democratic accountability and contrasts it with the appointed EU Commission. What he does not say is that the 28 member States have only allowed the EU to have jurisdiction over matters of shared interest, which include protecting the environment and the human rights of all its citizens. He also fails to mention that the European Commission is subject to the authority of elected politicians, albeit the collective political authority of all the countries affected. The hidden sub-text of his stance is that he wants Britain’s political elite to have unfettered control over all aspects of our lives. Britons would then have no right of appeal – even if a government were to legalise indefinite detention without trial, for example, and in 2004 it was only prevented from doing that by human-rights law.

When he states that “EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders”, he doesn’t explain how Britain would be better protected by leaving the EU and having no influence on its policies. The French are currently cooperating with Britain by holding back refugees at Calais. He also notes that political tensions are rising within Europe, largely because of the refugee problem. This is a legitimate cause for concern for Britain, whether or not it is an EU member; a Brexit would not help Europe to solve those problems.

It is easy to find examples of inappropriate regulation in any set of rules that has developed over many years. There are anachronisms in both British law and EU regulations. Michael Gove argues that the British economy outside the EU would no longer be held back by excessive regulation, but he does not say which regulations he would dispense with. Workers’ rights perhaps? Or environmental considerations? Or financial regulations (a tricky subject, given what happened in 2008)? Most EU regulations have been introduced to protect its citizens from what might otherwise be harmful actions by big companies (who might be donors to the Conservative party).

It is wishful thinking to assert that Britain would somehow be more prosperous if it were outside the EU. Most (but not all) British business leaders want to stay in the EU; their views should carry more weight than the assertions of self-interested politicians. It is also interesting to consider how we would achieve this additional economic growth without more people; we would need immigration from somewhere and several employers have expressed frustration at the arbitrary limits set by the government.

Boris Johnson has made a political calculation, in which self-interest will have played a part. The Economist article referred to above mentions his desire to replace David Cameron, for example. He would have taken account of Michael Gove’s arguments and he almost certainly would have assessed the strong popular tide running for Brexit, particularly when so much of the national press is banging that drum. Unfortunately, many people will not try to make up their own minds by closely examining the arguments for Brexit; they might be attracted by the nationalist sentiments expressed by Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, they might trust Boris Johnson as a politician, and many will unquestioningly accept the opinions expressed by those newspapers with whom they feel most comfortable.

There is a bigger picture, which is less sentimentally nationalistic and which puts real influence before the pipe-dream of complete autonomy. Having close links with one’s neighbours is the best policy in a joined-up world. Those who wish to put the ‘Great’ back into Great Britain should reflect that the world was different when it had an Empire. Then it was seen as an island protected by the world’s strongest navy; now it is more appropriate for the United Kingdom to cultivate its soft power and its economy –both of which depend upon it having close relationships with other countries.

The Politics of Immigration

The political posturing on immigration in Britain isn’t based upon detailed analysis of what would be best for the population. It is an example of the impact of pressure on politicians (6.4.6), which in this case can be summarised as balancing their need for popular support against the needs of business, with the media adding more heat than light to the discussion.

Impending elections are focussing politicians’ minds on their need for popular support – but what is popular seems to be more influenced by media reporting than by research findings. A recent survey showed that 77% of the population want immigration to be reduced and that 47% believe that it is bad for the economy, reflecting the impact of popular newspapers which selectively report stories which put some immigrants in a bad light. Stirring up popular indignation, against immigrants claiming benefits or committing crimes, sells newspapers – but it leaves a misleading impression that can wrongly be applied to all immigrants. Academic research suggests that immigrants have benefited the economy – they contribute to economic growth and are less likely to claim benefits than are British citizens.

The government is delaying the publication of information which is favourable to immigrants. It isn’t showing leadership. It should explain the valuable contribution made by many immigrants, such as students who pay high tuition fees and the seasonal influx of people who pick fruit. Targets for net immigration are mere posturing; they are unworkable. Britain needs policies that allow beneficial immigration but prevent abuses.

The Conservative party is trying to match UKIP’s rhetoric because it fears losing support in the upcoming European elections in May. It is more worried about keeping its own right wing satisfied than attending to what is best for the British people.

There are legitimate concerns about accommodating an increase in population – and there is already a need for more housing, irrespective of immigration. It would be possible to reduce immigration, but the Office of Budget Responsibility (as quoted in The Economist) has forecast that the national debt would almost double over the next few decades if Britain shuts its doors. In the words of The Economist:

“The country truly faces a fundamental choice. In the next few years it could lapse into isolation, or it could succeed in combining a smaller, more efficient state with a more open attitude to the rest of the world. So, Britain, which is it to be?”

Answering that question requires thorough analysis and mature political debate, not pre-electoral posturing.