Getting the Assange issue wrong

Some illiberal thinking by well-meaning liberals.

The Guardian today publishes this letter in support of Julian Assange.

Most sensible and liberal people will find something to endorse in the letter. Although the moral certainty of some of those involved in or supportive of WikiLeaks can be off-putting – and I, for one, am glad that their fingers are on "To publish" buttons only, rather than any others – there is no doubt that they are facing sustained and hostile actions intended to undermine their activity.

But at the end of this letter of support come demands that are flatly, horribly wrong: "We demand his immediate release, the dropping of all charges . . ."

No. This is a person accused of sex offences and against whom there is a European Arrest Warrant. It may well be that he will be able to defeat the attempt to extradite him, or it may be that he will be cleared of the allegations, or acquitted of any charges if tried. But as it stands, he should not be treated any worse or any better than any other person accused of such offences who is subject to a live extradition process.

When the allegations first broke back in August, it was immediately clear that many of his supporters were rushing in to smear or dismiss the complainants casually. This was an ugly and unfortunate reaction which, if anything, has intensified. Many observers – and not only feminists – are rightly disgusted by this display of instinctive or intended misogyny (including a great piece today by Libby Brooks, also in the Guardian).

Just as in August, the complainants deserve to be accorded respect. Assange, in turn, should have the benefit of the presumption of innocence. And, unless there is a good basis for defeating the extradition proceedings, there should now be a speedy procedure that will either determine any guilt or clear his name.

All this is simply "due process" and, once upon a time, well-meaning liberals wrote letters to the Guardian in defence of this liberal value, too.

David Allen Green is a lawyer and writer. He is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2010.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Amber Rudd's report on the benefits of EU immigration is better late than never

The study will strengthen the case for a liberal post-Brexit immigration system. 

More than a year after vowing to restrict EU immigration, the government has belatedly decided to investigate whether that's a good idea. Home Secretary Amber Rudd has asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the costs and benefits of free movement to the British economy.

The study won't conclude until September 2018 - just six months before the current Brexit deadline and after the publication of the government's immigration white paper. But in this instance, late is better than never. If the report reflects previous studies it will show that EU migration has been an unambiguous economic benefit. Immigrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits and sectors such as agriculture, retail and social care depend on a steady flow of newcomers. 

Amber Rudd has today promised businesses and EU nationals that there will be no "cliff edge" when the UK leaves the EU, while immigration minister Brandon Lewis has seemingly contradicted her by baldly stating: "freedom of movement ends in the spring of 2019". The difference, it appears, is explained by whether one is referring to "Free Movement" (the official right Britain enjoys as an EU member) or merely "free movement" (allowing EU migrants to enter the newly sovereign UK). 

More important than such semantics is whether Britain's future immigration system is liberal or protectionist. In recent months, cabinet ministers have been forced to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: Britain needs immigrants. Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit Secretary David Davis, for instance, recently conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants." 

In this regard, it's striking that Brandon Lewis could not promise that the "tens of thousands" net migration target would be met by the end of this parliament (2022) and that Rudd's FT article didn't even reference it. As George Osborne helpfully observed earlier this year, no senior cabinet minister (including Rudd) supports the policy. When May departs, whether this year or in 2019, she will likely take the net migration target with her. 

In the meantime, even before the end of free movement, net migration has already fallen to its lowest level since 2014 (248,000), while EU citizens are emigrating at the fastest rate for six years (117,000 left in 2016). The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are among the main deterrents. If the report does its job, it will show why the UK can't afford for that trend to continue. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.