Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Angelina Jolie is right (Sunday Express)

It has long been known that rape is used as a weapon in war, an act that is part of a tactic rather than a consequence of conflict.

2. If Thatcher's revolution had truly saved us, why is Britain in such a mess today? (Observer)

The claims made for Mrs Thatcher's transformative powers are grossly exaggerated.

3. As the liberal sneers persist, who now speaks for the Essex man? (Sunday Times) (£)

Camilla Cavendish argues there is far less optimism for the would-be "self-made" Essex man now than in Thatcher's day.

4. Poverty food is the diet of choice. Our choice (Independent on Sunday)

The West may take a fancy to recipes inspired by the peasant life, but those compelled to eat that way would marvel at our plenty.

5. Margaret Thatcher is dead. But someone has reinvented her life (Observer)

So positive has been the media coverage of Baroness Thatcher's achievements, that I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined the entire 80s, writes Stuart Lee.

6. Thatcher's children have grown up. The world has changed since her time (Times) (£)

This generation of politicians has its own path to tread, says Michael Gove.

7. What it will take to break up Britain (Scotland on Sunday)

Iain McLean, Jim Gallagher and Guy Lodge preview their forthcoming book "Scotland's Choices".

8. Let's remember Maggie for what she really was ... a tragic failure (Mail on Sunday)

Peter Hitchens lets readers know why he is not "a worshipper at the Thatcher Shrine".

9. Margaret Thatcher - the dogged climber who pulled the ladder up (Independent on Sunday)

Baroness Thatcher did little to help less privileged women, believing the battle for women's rights had been won. She was talking about herself

10. Why David Cameron won't confront Ukip (Guardian)

The Tories, doing less well than they should be, are running scared of challenging what Nigel Farage's crew stands for.

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.