Theresa May should promise all EU nationals the permanent right to stay in the UK now

Since the Brexit vote, Theresa May has reserved the UK Government’s position on whether or not EU nationals currently resident in the UK can remain here with the same rights as now.  Her logic is that this should form part of the Brexit deal negotiated with the EU, in return for British nationals receiving similar guarantees. While this caution is understandable, it does not stand up to rational and moral analysis, and I will explain why in this article.

1.       The human dimension

After 40 years of EU membership, the vote for Brexit was a huge shock to everyone, not least to the 3 million EU nationals who have made their home in the UK.  2 million of those people are in work, and they account for 7% of the UK workforce.  It is worth noting that the proportion of other EU nationals of working age in work is higher (78%) than the equivalent for UK nationals (74%).

The shock of Brexit has quickly given way to insecurity, fear, and anxiety.  Brexit shakes the very foundations of careers, relationships, and whole lives built on the basis of the rights of EU nationals to live and work anywhere in the EU. The Brexit vote was also a clear protest against the numbers of EU nationals in the UK, who inevitably now feel less welcome.  The well-documented rise in race hatred since Brexit heightens this anxiety. 

EU nationals have been looking to the UK Government for guarantees. However, all they know so far is that their rights – and their lives – will go into the mix once Brexit negotiations are underway.  On current timescales, their position will remain unclear for as long as 2.5 more years: that is a long time for anyone’s life to be on hold. 

2.       The moral dimension

If EU nationals currently in the UK lose their right to stay, then their current insecurity will intensify hugely as they become subject to whatever new regime takes its place.  Those who lose rights to work and/or stay in the UK as a result of this process will be losing existing rights.  The lives of people who came to the UK in good faith to work and live will be turned upside down. The immorality of doing this should be obvious to all. 

Theresa May’s case is that stripping these rights would be a last resort only in response to a similar decision by the EU (which I will come on to later).  But two wrongs do not make a right.  If a political decision is immoral, then politicians should not be afraid of ruling it out as soon as possible, even if only for the sake of their personal integrity, and no matter who else is willing to take such an immoral decision.

3.       The legal dimension 

A decision by any country to strip residents of their rights to live and/or work there is likely to lead to a morass of human rights litigation, compensation claims, and widespread condemnation by international institutions and other nations.  The legal mess, and the political and economic consequences for years to come would be incalculable.

4.       The economic dimension

Our economy depends on the contributions of EU nationals currently working in the UK.  Many technicians, academics, and engineers, for example, plug UK skill shortages.  (The UK is already suffering restrictions in academic cooperation and recruitment.)  Many healthcare, factory, and agricultural workers plug labour shortages. The Brexit vote instantly made the UK a less attractive place for them and others to work.  Failing to guarantee their current rights to live and work for up to another 2 or more years exacerbates this problem. 

Both of these issues have also led to a significant loss of goodwill in Europe.  Some of our exporters can exploit the strong pound for now, but somewhere along the line we will pay a price on export markets as European consumers and businesses think twice before buying British.  Goodwill is essential to long-term business relationships.

A positive gesture and commitment from Theresa May to guarantee the rights of EU nationals would modestly lift the mood among those people affected and also on the markets, which respond to sentiment sometimes as much as to other more fundamental economic factors. 

5.       Political dimension

Now that we have a clearer picture of the downsides of the UK’s approach, we need to weigh them in the balance: Theresa May wants to yield these rights only once she is sure that the corresponding rights of UK citizens in other EU countries will be safeguarded.  Though formal discussions on this cannot begin until the UK Government invokes Article 50, the EU wants the UK to do this sooner rather than later. The currently delay on the issue being resolved is the responsibility of the UK Government.

So far, no EU leader has publicly hinted that the rights of UK nationals will be up for discussion.  Poland wants to ensure that the UK is not punished, and its 1 million citizens in the UK would have much to lose from any tit-for-tat measures.  Angela Merkel has made conciliatory noises, and the idea of Germany pushing such a move is ridiculous. 

If any EU nation was likely to make an issue, then we might expect France to.  However, President Hollande has stated that UK nationals in France are welcome to stay as long as they want.  No other EU leader slapped him down for speaking out of turn.  In fact, for the EU to make proposals to restrict free movement and the right to work would be unprecedented and out-of-character.  The same terrible legal consequences which I mentioned above would also apply to the EU. In short, the prospect of the EU making an issue of this is unthinkable.

Conclusion

The risk of the EU bargaining with the rights of UK citizens to live and work in the EU is minimal.  The consequences of the UK reserving its rights on the issue as regards EU nationals in the UK are all bad. The UK Government has drawn a battle line in the upcoming Brexit negotiations where none needed to be drawn.  Conspiracy theorists may argue that Theresa May’s tactics are more to do with her bargaining position on more vulnerable issues, like the City of London’s access to EU financial markets.  However, such a position would be even more morally indefensible. 

In conclusion, Mrs May has every reason to give an urgent, unilateral, categorical, humble, and warm reassurance to EU nationals now resident in the UK that their rights to live and work will be protected, no matter what.  

Statistics from: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Boris Johnson’s appointment as foreign minister: the embarrassing, the bad, the ugly ... and the solution

Boris Johnson’s appointment as UK Foreign Secretary has stunned a large number of people.  Those who voted Remain in the EU referendum are angry that someone who they regarded as spreading falsehoods and stirring up populist sentiment without a clear Brexit plan could be rewarded with such an important post.  As views differ on the rights and wrongs of the Brexit vote, I will focus here on Mr Johnson’s suitability for high office only on the basis of his litany of negative comments about foreigners.

Initially as a journalist, and more recently as an MP, Mr Johnson has:

a)      accused Barack Obama as being resentful of the UK because of his “half-Kenyan ancestry”,

b)      described Hillary Clinton as like a “sadistic mental nurse”,

c)       described Ugandans as “natives” who would do well to welcome back the UK as a colonial power in view of the mess in their country, as long as they did not later complain,

d)      likened President Putin of Russia to Dobby the elf, from Harry Potter,

e)      described Commonwealth citizens of Africa as “piccaninnies” (a derogatory term in the USA for black people) with “water-melon smiles”, and

f)       produced verse which described President Erdogan of Turkey as someone who has sexual relations with goats (together with obscene language about him).

A number of important senior politicians in allied countries have expressed shock and dismay at Mr Johnson’s appointment in the light of these comments. Mr Johnson has not acknowledged the reactions or apologised. Neither has Theresa May, the new Prime Minister of the UK. 

There is no doubt that Mr Johnson has used his talent for writing to say upsetting things about people from other countries.  There is no doubt that he, Theresa May and all Conservative MPs realise this.  There is no doubt that anyone in a professional job in the UK who said similar things would be in trouble with their employers.  I am a private tutor and I am sure I would lose clients if I published comments like Mr Johnson’s.

It is not normally possible to go through life upsetting many people and avoiding all the consequences, much less achieve stratospheric promotions.  But this is what has happened with Boris Johnson.  Can someone please tell me what is going on?

Actions and words have consequences.  These are some of the consequences I foresee in respect of Mr Johnson's words and his failure to apologise:

a)      A loss of goodwill from everyone and every group who has been insulted by Mr Johnson.  This includes the likely next president of the USA and a large number of representatives of nations who he has to deal with in his everyday work as Foreign Secretary;

b)      A corresponding loss of respect and negotiating strength with those people; if you insult someone, fail to apologise and then seek their cooperation, then the cost of that cooperation will significantly rise; this is human nature; Theresa May needs to acknowledge this issue to us and factor in the increased costs of such cooperation if she is serious about making a success of Brexit (her declared aim);

c)       Increased levels of distrust from everyone who Mr Johnson deals with; if he can think and say these things about certain groups of people, then what does he think about everyone else?  What has not been published?  Again, the costs of cooperation rises, even in respect of those who are not the victims of his insults;

d)      A loss of respect and goodwill towards Mr Johnson from the Civil Service as a whole, and the Foreign Office in particular; civil servants are professional and have to serve whomever is in power, however, they are human like the rest of us and we can expect that experienced and competent diplomats will be privately appalled at the thought of serving a political master who has an unapologetic track record of insulting people and nations around the world; Mr Johnson’s language would not be tolerated from even the most junior diplomat.  Mr Johnson has to earn the personal respect of those he works with, like everyone else;

e)      A huge loss of respect for Theresa May, both within the UK and across the world; whatever were the back room shenanigans which paved the way for Mr Johnson’s appointment (and subsequent immunity from criticism), Mrs May sanctioned them when she appointed him; she compromised her reputation and, worse still, she deservedly invites cynicism and contempt for her as a professional, and for her party, her government and the entire UK political system for as long as she refuses to engage with the public reaction to Mr Johnson’s appointment;

f)       An increase in alienation among the general public in respect of the political process; we have recently witnessed Tony Blair tell us that he would go to war again if he had a second chance, despite criticism from Lord Chilcott for not first exhausting non-violent means; we have seen a very divisive EU referendum campaign with very strong criticism of the truth of the claims made; there has been no acknowledgment of the fact that no one has voted for a government run by Theresa May, any of her ministers, or for whatever policy commitments she will now seek to implement. In the context of heavy criticisms of EU democratic processes, the hypocrisy of our growing home-grown democratic deficit is beginning to grate. Rock-bottom confidence in the political process is dropping further.

      On a more personal level, what is most worrying is not Mr Johnson’s comments in themselves, but his refusal to acknowledge that they are an issue. It is as if he and Ms May believe that they can ride out the barrage of criticism until they have some positive achievements to parade before us.  Then suddenly all will be well, and we will forget his past indiscretions.  But people who operate that way are not to be trusted: they have never grown up, always moving one from the wreckage of one mess to the next challenge before their past catches up with them.  Boris Johnson is this kind of character, and Theresa May is now complicit and co-dependent in his acting-out. As Tony Blair’s continued fall from grace demonstrates, deep down, people don’t really forget, even if they are a bit quieter during the good times.

      I once looked into the (very impressive) 12-step approaches to recovery from addiction of almost any type. Essential to the process of recovery from addiction is the acceptance of one’s mistakes.  Early on in the process are requirements for recovering addicts to set out an inventory of their faults, and then to take real steps to apologise and make practical amends for those mistakes, where possible.  This is effectively what parents and teachers teach children.  This is also what happens in the more unforgiving adult worlds of work and relationships where consequences can be more serious and long-lasting.  This is what Boris Johnson needs.  It’s painfully obvious.

      Please, someone, tell Boris Johnson that he needs to remove himself from the political scene for a long time and work on his stuff. I for one can’t bear watching this circus any longer.  Then Mrs May, please come clean with the nation, before our respect for you sinks any lower.