This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/04/boris-johnson-pluralist-migration-brexit
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 5 | Version 6 |
|---|---|
| If Boris Johnson wants a welcoming, pluralist nation, he must fight for it | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Boris Johnson sighed deeply and audibly. Asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr whether David Cameron’s pledge to reduce annual immigration to tens of thousands had been “a mistake”, the foreign secretary did his best not to tumble into the elephant trap. | Boris Johnson sighed deeply and audibly. Asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr whether David Cameron’s pledge to reduce annual immigration to tens of thousands had been “a mistake”, the foreign secretary did his best not to tumble into the elephant trap. |
| “Well, look,” he replied, “what I’ve always argued is that the crucial thing about immigration is to build public consent for what is happening. And I think it’s only by taking back control that you can do that, and it’s only by taking back control that you can get the numbers down at all. And then you have to go to people and say: ‘Look – you’ve got to understand there is a sense in which the sheer desire of the world to come to this country – high-skilled workers – is a massive compliment and tribute to the UK economy’.” So that’s a “yes”, albeit a lengthy one. | “Well, look,” he replied, “what I’ve always argued is that the crucial thing about immigration is to build public consent for what is happening. And I think it’s only by taking back control that you can do that, and it’s only by taking back control that you can get the numbers down at all. And then you have to go to people and say: ‘Look – you’ve got to understand there is a sense in which the sheer desire of the world to come to this country – high-skilled workers – is a massive compliment and tribute to the UK economy’.” So that’s a “yes”, albeit a lengthy one. |
| When ministers hold forth on migration, they refer to the future. Voters mean the migrations of the past | When ministers hold forth on migration, they refer to the future. Voters mean the migrations of the past |
| Routinely caricatured as a champion of “hard Brexit”, Johnson is, and has always been, an instinctive supporter of immigration. On Friday, in one of the best speeches he has delivered in recent years, he declared that Britain, while taking back control of its democratic institutions, should not become “a nation hauling up the drawbridge or slamming the door”. | Routinely caricatured as a champion of “hard Brexit”, Johnson is, and has always been, an instinctive supporter of immigration. On Friday, in one of the best speeches he has delivered in recent years, he declared that Britain, while taking back control of its democratic institutions, should not become “a nation hauling up the drawbridge or slamming the door”. |
| As long ago as September 2010, he described the new cap on immigrants as “a bit of a shambles”. Three years later he identified himself as “about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration”. At the time, there were some Tory MPs who felt that this alone should disqualify him from the party leadership. | As long ago as September 2010, he described the new cap on immigrants as “a bit of a shambles”. Three years later he identified himself as “about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration”. At the time, there were some Tory MPs who felt that this alone should disqualify him from the party leadership. |
| Last week it was reported – erroneously, he says – that Johnson had whispered his support for freedom of movement in the EU to four continental ambassadors. What made the story adhesive was its plausibility: true or not, it sounded compatible with the foreign secretary’s previously expressed opinions. This was always the contradiction at the heart of his prominence in the leave campaign – a campaign whose success depended hugely on popular anxiety about and hostility towards immigration. For Johnson, Paris was clearly worth a mass. | Last week it was reported – erroneously, he says – that Johnson had whispered his support for freedom of movement in the EU to four continental ambassadors. What made the story adhesive was its plausibility: true or not, it sounded compatible with the foreign secretary’s previously expressed opinions. This was always the contradiction at the heart of his prominence in the leave campaign – a campaign whose success depended hugely on popular anxiety about and hostility towards immigration. For Johnson, Paris was clearly worth a mass. |
| True, he did his best to square the circle by insisting that his primary concern was sovereign “control” of our borders, or, as he put it at the Tory conference: “It should be up to this parliament and this country – not to [European commission president] Jean-Claude Juncker – to decide if too many people are coming here.” | True, he did his best to square the circle by insisting that his primary concern was sovereign “control” of our borders, or, as he put it at the Tory conference: “It should be up to this parliament and this country – not to [European commission president] Jean-Claude Juncker – to decide if too many people are coming here.” |
| The trouble is that those who voted for Brexit voted for “control” with a purpose. The abstractions of sovereignty may fascinate politicians and constitutional historians, but they don’t fly in Essex. No amount of prettification can disguise the true sentiments that drove many to back leave. | The trouble is that those who voted for Brexit voted for “control” with a purpose. The abstractions of sovereignty may fascinate politicians and constitutional historians, but they don’t fly in Essex. No amount of prettification can disguise the true sentiments that drove many to back leave. |
| What the referendum result unleashed was soaring expectations among those who choose to blame their misfortunes – real or imagined – upon immigrants. It nurtured the pernicious notion that population mobility is a zero-sum game: that those who come to this country are a bunch of freeloaders, depriving indigenous Britons of jobs, school places, housing and healthcare. (For comprehensive demolition of these myths, do consult the LSE politics and policy blog, and particularly the writing of Neli Demireva.) | What the referendum result unleashed was soaring expectations among those who choose to blame their misfortunes – real or imagined – upon immigrants. It nurtured the pernicious notion that population mobility is a zero-sum game: that those who come to this country are a bunch of freeloaders, depriving indigenous Britons of jobs, school places, housing and healthcare. (For comprehensive demolition of these myths, do consult the LSE politics and policy blog, and particularly the writing of Neli Demireva.) |
| Poll after poll has shown that immigration was a more important issue to leave supporters than economic prosperity. So what will these voters make of the government’s apparent readiness to allow continued free movement of skilled EU migrants in defined sectors? How will they respond to continued immigration from outside Europe? At present, 130,000 EU citizens work in our health and social care system, and we need more. Where will they come from? | Poll after poll has shown that immigration was a more important issue to leave supporters than economic prosperity. So what will these voters make of the government’s apparent readiness to allow continued free movement of skilled EU migrants in defined sectors? How will they respond to continued immigration from outside Europe? At present, 130,000 EU citizens work in our health and social care system, and we need more. Where will they come from? |
| Worse, most politicians have cravenly declined to parse this strand of public debate. When ministers hold forth about “immigration”, they are referring to the future. But (I strongly suspect) when a great many voters use the word, they mean the migrations of the past. They are talking about social cohesion today, not border control tomorrow. They are referring, however elliptically, to their neighbours. | Worse, most politicians have cravenly declined to parse this strand of public debate. When ministers hold forth about “immigration”, they are referring to the future. But (I strongly suspect) when a great many voters use the word, they mean the migrations of the past. They are talking about social cohesion today, not border control tomorrow. They are referring, however elliptically, to their neighbours. |
| This is more than a semantic quibble. It is the core problem lurking within the cacophonous Brexit debate . On Monday, Louise Casey will publish her review into opportunity and integration in “our most isolated communities”. Ministers are braced for some robust recommendations – concerning both institutional failures to prevent cultural cantonisation and (for instance) the persistent problem of Islamic radicalisation. | This is more than a semantic quibble. It is the core problem lurking within the cacophonous Brexit debate . On Monday, Louise Casey will publish her review into opportunity and integration in “our most isolated communities”. Ministers are braced for some robust recommendations – concerning both institutional failures to prevent cultural cantonisation and (for instance) the persistent problem of Islamic radicalisation. |
| This terrain is as socially sensitive as it gets. But it is the terrain towards which the magical mystery tour of Brexit is leading us. As Sebastian Junger writes in his compelling book, Tribe: “Humans don’t mind hardship, in fact they thrive on it; what they mind is not feeling necessary. Modern society has perfected the art of making people not feel necessary.” | This terrain is as socially sensitive as it gets. But it is the terrain towards which the magical mystery tour of Brexit is leading us. As Sebastian Junger writes in his compelling book, Tribe: “Humans don’t mind hardship, in fact they thrive on it; what they mind is not feeling necessary. Modern society has perfected the art of making people not feel necessary.” |
| That is so. But trouble arises when those who doubt their necessity are encouraged – discreetly or otherwise – to blame their predicament upon imagined impostors, supposedly intent on taking away what they have left. This is why it is so irresponsible to say (as ministers have) that companies should keep lists of foreign workers, or to suggest that doctors born overseas are taking jobs from British teenagers who aspire to read medicine, or to make this country less welcoming to foreign students. | That is so. But trouble arises when those who doubt their necessity are encouraged – discreetly or otherwise – to blame their predicament upon imagined impostors, supposedly intent on taking away what they have left. This is why it is so irresponsible to say (as ministers have) that companies should keep lists of foreign workers, or to suggest that doctors born overseas are taking jobs from British teenagers who aspire to read medicine, or to make this country less welcoming to foreign students. |
| The standard riposte to such objections is that there must be a debate about population mobility, that the subject cannot be taboo. And that is true enough. But what is lacking in mainstream politics is not opposition to immigration, but a sufficiency of voices willing to make the case for it. In this respect, Sir Oliver Letwin was quite right last week to tell the Times that the main parties have “made a terrible mistake” in failing to argue, with commitment and resolve, that “properly controlled migration enriches the country in every sense”. | The standard riposte to such objections is that there must be a debate about population mobility, that the subject cannot be taboo. And that is true enough. But what is lacking in mainstream politics is not opposition to immigration, but a sufficiency of voices willing to make the case for it. In this respect, Sir Oliver Letwin was quite right last week to tell the Times that the main parties have “made a terrible mistake” in failing to argue, with commitment and resolve, that “properly controlled migration enriches the country in every sense”. |
| The sooner that failure is corrected, the better. Post-Brexit Britain is not going to be the nativist homeland that some fondly imagine (and were implicitly led to expect). It will remain a pluralist, heterogeneous nation, welcoming many thousands of newcomers a month – and all the better for it. As a Brexiteer who nonetheless embraces this collective destiny, Johnson is uniquely placed to explain its merits to sceptical voters who envisage a very different outcome. And for him, it is a chance to show that he grasps the difference between politics and statesmanship. | The sooner that failure is corrected, the better. Post-Brexit Britain is not going to be the nativist homeland that some fondly imagine (and were implicitly led to expect). It will remain a pluralist, heterogeneous nation, welcoming many thousands of newcomers a month – and all the better for it. As a Brexiteer who nonetheless embraces this collective destiny, Johnson is uniquely placed to explain its merits to sceptical voters who envisage a very different outcome. And for him, it is a chance to show that he grasps the difference between politics and statesmanship. |