A memo, from Mehdi to George: Dear Chancellor, your pants are on fire

Isn't it time for George Osborne to apologise for his mendacity during the AV campaign?

There were two depressing aspects to the electoral reform referendum in May. First, of course, there was the result: it was a crushing defeat for the Yes2AV campaign and all of us who support progressive, pluralist politics. Second, there was the US-style negative campaigning and gutter politics engaged in by the No to AV campaign and its parliamentary and media outriders. The No campaign was built on fear, hysteria and lies -- and it worked. The British public rejected a system that would have put more power in the hands of voters and reduced, in a stroke, the number of "safe seats" across the UK.

And here's the thing: the lies were brazen. The former home secretary and high-profile No to AV supporter David Blunkett admitted, on the eve of the vote, that anti-AV claims were "made up". No to AV, for example, pulled the figure "£250m" out of thin air and then argued that this would be the cost of introducing AV in the UK. One anti-AV poster -- proudly conceived by the Staggers guest blogger Dan Hodges -- claimed that the adoption of AV would automatically reduce the number of cardiac facilities available to premature babies. It was nasty stuff.

But to witness the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most senior politicians in the land, getting down and dirty in the gutter on behalf of the anti-AV campaign was deeply disturbing. On 12 April, the Daily Mail reported Osborne as saying:

What really stinks is . . . one of the ways the Yes campaign is funded. The Electoral Reform Society, which is actually running some of the referendum ballots, and is being paid to do that by the taxpayer, stands to benefit if AV comes in . . . that organisation, the Electoral Reform Society -- part of it is a company [Electoral Reform Services Ltd] that makes money -- is funding the Yes campaign.

That stinks, frankly, and is exactly the sort of dodgy, behind-the-scenes shenanigans that people don't like about politics. The No campaign has asked for it to be investigated by the Electoral Commission and certainly I think there are some very, very serious questions that have to be answered.

But, on Wednesday, the Guardian's Roy Greenslade noted on his media blog that the Press Complaints Commission's latest list of resolved complaints includes two items on how Electoral Reform Services (ERSL) had complained about articles in both the Daily Mail and the Sun -- both of which carried the Chancellor's claims -- that they said contained inaccuracies. The Mail and the Sun, "to resolve the matter", agreed to publish a letter from the organisation in print and online (at the foot of the original articles).

The ERS letter pointed out:

Mr Osborne was wrong: the introduction of AV would not have required any additional voting machines and even if it had, ERSL would have gained no financial benefit because it doesn't manufacture or supply such machines.

Our services to local authorities are limited to the printing and mailing of ballot material and the provision of software for the management of electoral registers.

The Mail and the Sun have been forced to correct their misleading reports. The question is: isn't it time Mr Osborne is asked to apologise for or, at least, clarify his own dishonest claims?

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's offer to EU citizens leaves the 3 million with unanswered questions

So many EU citizens, so little time.

Ahead of the Brexit negotiations with the 27 remaining EU countries, the UK government has just published its pledges to EU citizens living in the UK, listing the rights it will guarantee them after Brexit and how it will guarantee them. The headline: all 3 million of the country’s EU citizens will have to apply to a special “settled status” ID card to remain in the UK after it exist the European Union.

After having spent a year in limbo, and in various occasions having been treated by the same UK government as bargaining chips, this offer will leave many EU citizens living in the UK (this journalist included) with more questions than answers.

Indisputably, this is a step forward. But in June 2017 – more than a year since the EU referendum – it is all too little, too late. 

“EU citizens are valued members of their communities here, and we know that UK nationals abroad are viewed in the same way by their host countries.”

These are words the UK’s EU citizens needed to hear a year ago, when they woke up in a country that had just voted Leave, after a referendum campaign that every week felt more focused on immigration.

“EU citizens who came to the UK before the EU Referendum, and before the formal Article 50 process for exiting the EU was triggered, came on the basis that they would be able to settle permanently, if they were able to build a life here. We recognise the need to honour that expectation.”

A year later, after the UK’s Europeans have experienced rising abuse and hate crime, many have left as a result and the ones who chose to stay and apply for permanent residency have seen their applications returned with a letter asking them to “prepare to leave the country”, these words seem dubious at best.

To any EU citizen whose life has been suspended for the past year, this is the very least the British government could offer. It would have sounded a much more sincere offer a year ago.

And it almost happened then: an editorial in the Evening Standard reported last week that Theresa May, then David Cameron’s home secretary, was the reason it didn’t. “Last June, in the days immediately after the referendum, David Cameron wanted to reassure EU citizens they would be allowed to stay,” the editorial reads. “All his Cabinet agreed with that unilateral offer, except his Home Secretary, Mrs May, who insisted on blocking it.” 

"They will need to apply to the Home Office for permission to stay, which will be evidenced through a residence document. This will be a legal requirement but there is also an important practical reason for this. The residence document will enable EU citizens (and their families) living in the UK to demonstrate to third parties (such as employers or providers of public services) that they have permission to continue to live and work legally in the UK."

The government’s offer lacks details in the measures it introduces – namely, how it will implement the registration and allocation of a special ID card for 3 million individuals. This “residence document” will be “a legal requirement” and will “demonstrate to third parties” that EU citizens have “permission to continue to live and work legally in the UK.” It will grant individuals ““settled status” in UK law (indefinite leave to remain pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971)”.

The government has no reliable figure for the EU citizens living in the UK (3 million is an estimation). Even “modernised and kept as smooth as possible”, the administrative procedure may take a while. The Migration Observatory puts the figure at 140 years assuming current procedures are followed; let’s be optimistic and divide by 10, thanks to modernisation. That’s still 14 years, which is an awful lot.

To qualify to receive the settled status, an individual must have been resident in the UK for five years before a specified (although unspecified by the government at this time) date. Those who have not been a continuous UK resident for that long will have to apply for temporary status until they have reached the five years figure, to become eligible to apply for settled status.

That’s an application to be temporarily eligible to apply to be allowed to stay in the UK. Both applications for which the lengths of procedure remain unknown.

Will EU citizens awaiting for their temporary status be able to leave the country before they are registered? Before they have been here five years? How individuals will prove their continuous employment or housing is undisclosed – what about people working freelance? Lodgers? Will proof of housing or employment be enough, or will both be needed?

Among the many other practicalities the government’s offer does not detail is the cost of such a scheme, although it promises to “set fees at a reasonable level” – which means it will definitely not be free to be an EU citizen in the UK (before Brexit, it definitely was.)

And the new ID will replace any previous status held by EU citizens, which means even holders of permanent citizenship will have to reapply.

Remember that 140 years figure? Doesn’t sound so crazy now, does it?

0800 7318496