The deafening silence on veil bans

France and Belgium are racing to be the first to ban the burqa. Why wasn't that worth mentioning in

I thought that last night's debate, which supposedly concentrated on foreign affairs, was pathetically limited. As I predicted, our place in the world was discussed almost entirely through the prisms of our relationships with the US and with the European Union.

Given that, a little more examination of those relationships would have been welcome. Take the EU. Whatever you think about our membership, it is an institution that does matter -- not least because its laws supersede ours.

So why was there no mention of the unbelievable race that France and Belgium are engaged in -- the prize for winning which is to be the first country in Europe to ban the full face veil?

Belgium's parliament was due to vote on the legislation yesterday, until the government coalition collapsed after one party withdrew. This, despite the fact that according to the BBC's estimate, only 30 women in the country regularly wear the burqa or niqab. (The link above also provides a
handy guide to different kinds of face veils, incidentally.)

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has ordered his government to put a bill with similar effect to parliament next month. The dignity of all women, apparently, is threatened by the under 2000 who are recorded as wearing the full veil in France.

I am no fan of either the niqab or the burqa. (I expressed my approval in October when the Dean of Al Azhar University called full face veiling "a custom that had nothing to do with the Islamic faith".) Mehdi Hasan has also discussed the subject on this site before.

But were these extraordinary moves on the part of two of our closest European neighbours not worth a mention in last night's debate? After all, what does it say about the continent's great traditions of tolerance and liberty that two countries wish to legislate specifically to tell a tiny number of women how they should dress?

It's understandable that our attention is concentrated inwards during an election. But I still find the deafening silence on this astonishing. Or are we happy for some minorities to be less equal than others?

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Forget gaining £350m a week, Brexit would cost the UK £300m a week

Figures from the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility reveal the negative economic impact Brexit would have. 

Even now, there are some who persist in claiming that Boris Johnson's use of the £350m a week figure was accurate. The UK's gross, as opposed to net EU contribution, is precisely this large, they say. Yet this ignores that Britain's annual rebate (which reduced its overall 2016 contribution to £252m a week) is not "returned" by Brussels but, rather, never leaves Britain to begin with. 

Then there is the £4.1bn that the government received from the EU in public funding, and the £1.5bn allocated directly to British organisations. Fine, the Leavers say, the latter could be better managed by the UK after Brexit (with more for the NHS and less for agriculture).

But this entire discussion ignores that EU withdrawal is set to leave the UK with less, rather than more, to spend. As Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes in a letter in today's Times: "The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15bn per year - or almost £300m per week - as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350m weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it. Those are the numbers and forecasts which the government has adopted. It is perhaps surprising that members of the government are suggesting rather different figures."

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to which Emmerson refers, are shown below (the £15bn figure appearing in the 2020/21 column).

Some on the right contend that a blitz of tax cuts and deregulation following Brexit would unleash  higher growth. But aside from the deleterious economic and social consequences that could result, there is, as I noted yesterday, no majority in parliament or in the country for this course. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.