Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Care of the elderly: it's not too late to make Britain a good place in which to grow old (Guardian)

At this time of year as families gather, our thoughts turn to the nation's elderly and how to provide for them fairly, writes Will Hutton.

2. What does 2013 hold for the main party leaders? (Guardian)

Nick Clegg and David Cameron face more of the same. Ed Miliband's future is more complicated. He has choices, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

3. Honours list: happy for Sir Wiggo, but Danny Boyle has a point (Guardian)

Danny Boyle's rejection of a knighthood reminds us that the principle behind the list is flawed, writes Stephanie Merritt.

4. Angry? Me? How dare you! (Guardian)

Nowadays, outrage is our only mode of discourse. It is high time that we all calmed down, writes Viv Groskop.

5. Ditching their modernisation campaign was the Tories’ worst strategic error since the poll tax (Telegraph) David Cameron must address the identity crisis in his party before it is too late, writes Matthew d'Aconda.

6. It's two years away, but the 2015 election is already lost (Telegraph)

Four factors conspire to make a Tory majority an outright impossibility, writes Paul Goodman.

7. Europe, wind, warming... we're slowly waking up to reality (Telegraph)

It was the year when many long-dominant belief systems began to collapse, writes Christopher Booker.

8. 2012: A year I won't forget, for all the wrong reasons (Independent)

I can't remember when I've ended a year so angry. Goodbye 2012 and good riddance, writes Joan Smith

9. Children face cruelties of the adult world (Financial Times)

Innocence has been squandered by mindless violence and economic idiocy, writes Simon Schama.

10. Cliffhanger (Times)

America may yet step back from the brink — but its bungled handling of its fiscal crisis reflects a broader malaise that could affect us all, writes Tony Allen-Mills.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken 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. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "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."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.