Futile and illegal — the case against Sarkozy’s migrant summit

Could Britain be heading for Roma-style expulsions?

A group of high immigration officials from six countries, including the UK, invited by President Nicolas Sarkozy, meets in Paris today to see what can be done to undermine the principle of the free movement of people between EU member states.

The French government, along with its Italian allies in Silvio Berlusconi's administration, has made it clear that it thinks European Union rules in this area are far too lax, and do not give sufficient authority to nation states to restrain the movement of European migrants when it appears to conflict with their political interests.

Back in 2008, Rome led the way in seeking powers to tackle these matters when it pushed through a law allowing the mass round-up and deportation of Roma, mainly of Romanian nationality.

At that time, the European Commission intervened to abrogate the measure on the grounds of an obvious conflict with EU citizens' directives. These limit the expulsion power of national governments to individual cases, in which grounds for action have been established on the basis of a clear threat to public policy, public security or public health.

Since then the French have stepped to the forefront in claiming wider powers of expulsion for their immigration authorities, and, like the Italians, made people of Roma background the principal targets for their actions. In 2009, Sarkozy's government returned 10,000 people, mainly citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, a further 8,000 people being removed so far in 2010.

The Paris meeting has been proclaimed by its sponsors as an opportunity for other national governments sympathetic to this approach to form a bloc that will overwhelm legal objections from the EU, and to permit the deportation of EU nationals as a general response to the economic downturn.

The Italian immigration minister, Roberto Moroni, revealed his thinking on this point when he claimed the right on the part of national governments to act against migrants who have failed to secure for themselves "a minimum level of income, adequate housing and not being a burden on the social welfare system of the country hosting them".

Yet this is a terrain that has already been explored, both by the last Labour government and by the current coalition in recent months, through special projects directed against migrants from the central European and Baltic countries that joined the EU after 2004.

Under one such pilot programme, UK Border Agency officials have issued notice to homeless migrants who are out of work or not attending a course of education, informing them that they have no right to reside in the UK under EU law. If they are not prepared to leave voluntarily, expulsion is underpinned by the prospect of immigration enforcement.

The number removed under this procedure up to now is believed to be small -- in the region of 13 people, with another hundred being served a "minded to remove" letter. But UK Border Agency and community and local government officials are reviewing the work of the pilot, with a view to rolling it out across other regions of the UK. If this is the case, the numbers exposed to the threat of losing their rights to residency might quickly rise.

People working with vulnerable migrant communities have pointed to the futility of such policies, which are likely to increase insecurity as migrants removed from one country begin to drift in larger numbers across the whole of EU. Perhaps of even more concern should be that removing European migrants under such circumstances may well turn out to be unlawful under EU law -- an assertion made recently by prominent lawyers in the field.

Heather Ureche, of Equality, a UK charity working with Roma families, anticipates that a number of Roma may arrive from autumn onwards as pressure to leave France and Italy persists. She has also seen evidence that the UK welfare authorities have started adopting a much harsher approach to immigrants of eastern European origin, withdrawing child and family tax benefits, threatening destitute parents with care proceedings against their children, and increasing inspections of multiple-occupancy homes, leading to more people being pitched on to the street.

It is clear that defenders of the basic human rights of migrants will resist all of these attempts to promote even higher levels of insecurity among vulnerable groups. They expect to receive the support of civic society organisations, from trade unions through to the churches. The really interesting question is whether the defence of rights to free movement across Europe is an issue that will prick the conscience of the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition, and that of the Labour opposition.

Don Flynn is the director of Migrants' Rights Network.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.