Immigration and the EU: Tory ministers play with fire

All parties know that open borders are required to stay in the single European market. But there is

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has told the Daily Telegraph that contingency planning is under way to address the prospect of a surge in immigration from crisis-stricken countries (chiefly Greece) in the event that the single currency collapses or members are forced to leave.

EU states are not supposed to restrict movement of people within the  union (with some “transitional controls” applied to relatively new members). The single labour market is an essential component of the whole project to create a unified trading space. Some tightening of controls is permitted in “exceptional” circumstances and Britain is not a signatory to the Schengen accord that waives border checks between most continental EU members.

Still, a unilateral imposition of visas and other restrictions on Greek or Portuguese workers coming to the UK would be an irregular and, indeed, extraordinary contravention of the spirit of the European economic cooperation. That isn’t to say it wouldn’t be popular.

The role that the European single labour market plays in Britain’s constantly anxious debate about immigration is a peculiar one. It substantially limits the capacity of UK governments to pre-determine the number of foreign nationals working in the UK; it also offers British citizens many lucrative opportunities to live and work elsewhere in Europe. Indeed, that is the point – mutual advantage for all EU workers.

But politicians from all parties hate discussing the free movement of labour because they are all, in theory, signed up to the single market project. There has always been some nervousness in Westminster about broaching the subject for fear that wary and sceptical acceptance of Britain’s EU membership would drain away completely it were being portrayed as the engine of mass immigration. The consequence of this squeamishness is nonsensical policies and pronouncements around the whole immigration topic: Gordon Brown’s meaningless pledge of “British jobs for British workers”; the coalition’s immigration “cap” that only applies to non-EU nationals.

There are signs, as hostility and anxiety around the EU grow, that Conservatives are getting ready to be a little bit more explicit and aggressive on this subject. Employment minister Chris Grayling told an audience at an event run by the ConservativeHome website last week that the Tories should be more forthright in mobilising fear of immigration in their anti-Brussels message:

It’s much easier to explain to a voter that we are unhappy with what the EU is doing because, for example, it wants us to allow people to come here and settle and be able to access our benefit system without the safeguards that we have in place today. That’s something everyone can understand.

It is not a particularly attractive political proposition or even a very honest one given the parallel benefits that Britain gets from the single market. But it has the potential to be crudely, nastily effective.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexit could destroy our NHS – and it would be the government's own fault

Without EU citizens, the health service will be short of 20,000 nurses in a decade.

Aneurin Bevan once said: "Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community."

And so, in 1948, the National Health Service was established. But today, the service itself seems to be on life support and stumbling towards a final and fatal collapse.

It is no secret that for years the NHS has been neglected and underfunded by the government. But Brexit is doing the NHS no favours either.

In addition to the promise of £350m to our NHS every week, Brexit campaigners shamefully portrayed immigrants, in many ways, as as a burden. This is quite simply not the case, as statistics have shown how Britain has benefited quite significantly from mass EU migration. The NHS, again, profited from large swathes of European recruitment.

We are already suffering an overwhelming downturn in staffing applications from EU/EAA countries due to the uncertainty that Brexit is already causing. If the migration of nurses from EEA countries stopped completely, the Department of Health predicts the UK would have a shortage of 20,000 nurses by 2025/26. Some hospitals have significantly larger numbers of EU workers than others, such as Royal Brompton in London, where one in five workers is from the EU/EAA. How will this be accounted for? 

Britain’s solid pharmaceutical industry – which plays an integral part in the NHS and our everyday lives – is also at risk from Brexit.

London is the current home of the highly prized EU regulatory body, the European Medicine Agency, which was won by John Major in 1994 after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

The EMA is tasked with ensuring that all medicines available on the EU market are safe, effective and of high quality. The UK’s relationship with the EMA is unquestionably vital to the functioning of the NHS.

As well as delivering 900 highly skilled jobs of its own, the EMA is associated with 1,299 QPPV’s (qualified person for pharmacovigilance). Various subcontractors, research organisations and drug companies have settled in London to be close to the regulatory process.

The government may not be able to prevent the removal of the EMA, but it is entirely in its power to retain EU medical staff. 

Yet Theresa May has failed to reassure EU citizens, with her offer to them falling short of continuation of rights. Is it any wonder that 47 per cent of highly skilled workers from the EU are considering leaving the UK in the next five years?

During the election, May failed to declare how she plans to increase the number of future homegrown nurses or how she will protect our current brilliant crop of European nurses – amounting to around 30,000 roles.

A compromise in the form of an EFTA arrangement would lessen the damage Brexit is going to cause to every single facet of our NHS. Yet the government's rhetoric going into the election was "no deal is better than a bad deal". 

Whatever is negotiated with the EU over the coming years, the NHS faces an uncertain and perilous future. The government needs to act now, before the larger inevitable disruptions of Brexit kick in, if it is to restore stability and efficiency to the health service.

0800 7318496