The Mail's odd campaign against "plastic Brit" Olympic athletes

Is everyone born abroad somehow not really British?

The Daily Mail's campaign against some of the Olympic athletes who will compete for Team GB - lambasting them as "plastic Brits" -  has always struggled for consistency. Partly, it was that the Daily Mail brought about the most egregious "passport of convenience" case with Zola Budd in 1984, by campaigning on her behalf. Mostly, it was a refusal to define the terms, so that different Mail writers attacked the British credentials of some athletes whom their colleagues praised.

I've written before about this, noting:

Twelve per cent of people in Britain today are foreign-born. Because that percentage is twice as high in London, the Olympic host city, the team of Olympic volunteers will probably have more multinational roots than Team GB. As a newspaper that celebrates patriotism and integration, the Mail could celebrate that 70 per cent of those born abroad feel a strong sense of belonging to Britain, even slightly outscoring those born in this country (66 per cent), as a State of the Nation poll found. They don't think they are Plastic Brits; instead, they fly their flags with pride.

One thing that was stressed for the defence was that this was not a pejorative attempt to attack all foreign-born athletes as "Plastic". But it transpires that the Mail has run a news story defining and counting the Plastic Brits: declaring there are 61 plastic Brits in Team GB, once the Mail defines a plastic Brit as "any citizen who was born abroad". It seems that both Mo Farah and Belgian-born Bradley Wiggins are "plastic" after all. And poor Prince Phillip is a Plastic Brit too.

I have written to Mail editor Paul Dacre suggesting that Friday's opening ceremony would be a good moment to adopt the tradition of an Olympic truce (see below).

Once the torch is lit in Stratford, it should be time to set aside the “plastic Brits” controversy for a fortnight, and to instead join the London crowds in their desire to get behind every Olympian invited to compete for Britain. If the Mail can bring itself to wave the Union Jack for all of the Olympic athletes chosen to compete for Britain, then they could count all of the medals that they win for Team GB in the medal table too.

--

Dear Mr Dacre,

The next fortnight will see the country rally around Team GB in the hope that they will write another golden chapter in the proud history of British sport.

The Daily Mail’s sports pages have sparked a lively and controversial debate in challenging some of the Olympic athletes selected to compete for Britain as “plastic Brits”, where they are naturalised citizens, or have qualified for the Olympic team through parental connections to Britain. The Mail has also praised the pride and contribution of many foreign-born Brits, such as Mo Farah, who arrived here as an 11-year old from war-torn Somalia to become a world-beating athlete.

No Team GB member has been able to jump the citizenship and immigration queue, nor bend the rules of their sport, though this has also been a debate about how best to reflect the spirit of international sport.

This “plastic Brits” debate has sparked passion from all sides.  But might the opening ceremony provide an ideal moment to adopt the tradition of an Olympic truce?

Once the torch is lit in Stratford, it should be time to set aside the “plastic Brits” controversy for a fortnight, and to instead join the London crowds in their desire to get behind every Olympian invited to compete for Britain.

The London Olympics will be an experience that many of us hope we and our children will remember for a lifetime. So let’s wave the Union Jack for all of the Olympic athletes chosen to compete for Britain – and count all of the medals that they win for Team GB in the medal table too.

Best wishes,

Sunder Katwala

Director, British Future

Bradley Wiggins: born in Belgium. Photo: Getty Images

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Getty
Show Hide image

MPs Seema Malhotra and Stephen Kinnock lay out a 6-point plan for Brexit:

Time for Theresa May to lay out her priorities and explain exactly what “Brexit means Brexit” really means.

Angela Merkel has called on Theresa May to “take her time” and “take a moment to identify Britain’s interests” before invoking Article 50. We know that is code for the “clock is ticking” and also that we hardly have any idea what the Prime Minister means by “Brexit means Brexit.”

We have no time to lose to seek to safeguard what is best in from our membership of the European Union. We also need to face some uncomfortable truths.

Yes, as remain campaigners we were incredibly disappointed by the result. However we also recognise the need to move forward with the strongest possible team to negotiate the best deal for Britain and maintain positive relationships with our nearest neighbours and allies. 
 
The first step will be to define what is meant by 'the best possible deal'. This needs to be a settlement that balances the economic imperative of access to the single market and access to skills with the political imperative to respond to the level of public opinion to reduce immigration from the EU. A significant proportion of people who voted Leave on 23 June did so due to concerns about immigration. We must now acknowledge the need to review and reform. 

We know that the single market is founded upon the so-called "four freedoms", namely the free movement of goods, capital, services and people & labour. As things stand, membership of the single market is on an all-or-nothing basis. 

We believe a focus for negotiations should be reforms to how the how the single market works. This should address how the movement of people and labour across the EU can exist alongside options for greater controls on immigration for EU states. 

We believe that there is an appetite for such reforms amongst a number of EU governments, and that it is essential for keeping public confidence in how well the EU is working.

So what should Britain’s priorities be? There are six vital principles that the three Cabinet Brexit Ministers should support now:

1. The UK should remain in the single market, to the greatest possible extent.

This is essential for our future prosperity as a country. A large proportion of the £17 billion of foreign direct investment that comes into the UK every year is linked to our tariff-free access to a market of 500 million consumers. 

Rather than seeking to strike a "package deal" across all four freedoms, we should instead sequence our approach, starting with an EU-wide review of the freedom of movement of people and labour. This review should explore whether the current system provides the right balance between consistency and flexibility for member states. Indeed, for the UK this should also address the issue of better registration of EU nationals in line with other nations and enforcement of existing rules. 

If we can secure a new EU-wide system for the movement of people and labour, we should then seek to retain full access to the free movement of goods, capital and services. This is not just in our interests, but in the interests of the EU. For other nation states to play hardball with Britain after we have grappled first with the complexity of the immigration debate would be to ignore rather than act early to address an issue that could eventually lead to the end of the EU as we know it.

2. In order to retain access to the single market we believe that it will be necessary to make a contribution to the EU budget.

Norway, not an EU member but with a high degree of access to the single market, makes approximately the same per capita contribution to the EU budget as the UK currently does. We must be realistic in our approach to this issue, and we insist that those who campaigned for Leave must now level with the British people. They must accept that if the British government wishes to retain access to the single market then it must make a contribution to the EU budget.

3. The UK should establish an immigration policy which is seen as fair, demonstrates that we remain a country that is open for business, and at the same time preventing unscrupulous firms from undercutting British workers by importing cheap foreign labour.  

We also need urgent confirmation that EU nationals who were settled here before the referendum as a minimum are guaranteed the right to remain, and that the same reassurance is urgently sought for Britons living in mainland Europe. The status of foreign students from the EU at our universities must be also be clarified and a strong message sent that they are welcomed and valued. 

4. The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity, while ensuring that the high standards of transparency and accountability agreed at an EU level are adhered to, alongside tough new rules against tax evasion and avoidance. In addition, our relationship with the European Investment Bank should continue. Industry should have the confidence that it is business as usual.

5. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s employment legislation. People were promised that workers’ rights would be protected in a post-Brexit Britain. We need to make sure that we do not have weaker employment legislation than the rest of Europe.

6. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s environmental legislation.

As with workers’ rights, we were promised that this too would be protected post-Brexit.  We must make sure we do not have weaker legislation on protecting the environment and combatting climate change. We must not become the weak link in Europe.

Finally, it is vital that the voice of Parliament and is heard, loud and clear. In a letter to the Prime Minister we called for new joint structures – a Special Parliamentary Committee - involving both Houses to be set up by October alongside the establishment of the new Brexit unit. There must be a clear role for opposition parties. It will be equally important to ensure that both Remain and Leave voices are represented and with clearly agreed advisory and scrutiny roles for parliament. Representation should be in the public domain, as with Select Committees.

However, it is also clear there will be a need for confidentiality, particularly when sensitive negotiating positions are being examined by the committee. 

We call for the establishment of a special vehicle – a Conference or National Convention to facilitate broader engagement of Parliament with MEPs, business organisations, the TUC, universities, elected Mayors, local government and devolved administrations. 

The UK’s exit from the EU has dominated the political and economic landscape since 23 June, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. It is essential that we enter into these negotiations with a clear plan. There can be no cutting of corners, and no half-baked proposals masquerading as "good old British pragmatism". 

The stakes are far too high for that.