Why Theresa May should back down on immigration bonds

A £3,000 visitor bond will hurt the poorest families, while doing nothing to deal with illegal immigration.

During his latest international tour, David Cameron again told us we are in a "global race". In Pakistan he righty declared, "we want to see the trade and investment relationship between Britain and Pakistan grow." On Tuesday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister reinforced his message telling us it was "vital that we expand our trade and increase overseas investment into the UK” and that he raised the issue of trade with Pakistan’s new Prime Minister. He had a similar message on his trip to India a few months ago, though as I said at the time his rhetoric often failed to match the reality

Well, here we go again. While David Cameron’s rhetoric abroad is laudable, the reality back home is very different. In recent weeks, Theresa May has been busy briefing Sunday newspapers on her new plan for a £3,000 visitor bond for visitors entering the UK. Which are the countries selected for her pet pilot scheme? You guessed it: India and Pakistan, along with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana. So while David Cameron tells us he wants to develop trade with India and Pakistan, Theresa May lets it be known these countries need a bond scheme for visitor visas because she considers them 'high risk'.

With pressure from her backbenchers on immigration and big promises made at the last general election, the Home Secretary wants to be seen to be tough. No doubt she is keen to create an impression that somehow her £3,000 bond proposal will lower net immigration levels. However, immigration as measured by the International Passenger Survey only counts migrants who plan to stay in the UK for more than a year. Since these visitor visas are only issued for up to six months, the bonds will have no impact on net immigration at all.

Meanwhile, the reaction in those countries we want to deepen our trade with has been less than enthusiastic, placing strain on our economic ties and diplomatic relations. India’s Hindustan Times reported the news with the headline: "UK plans visa bonds for 'high-risk' Asians, Africans", highlighting that Theresa May’s plans only affect immigrants from non-white countries. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has protested against the bond requirement, and a leading Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that "despite the apparently strong political ties, visa issue has remained a major irritant relationship (sic)". The paper also highlights the fact that "over one million Britons of Pakistani origin have contributed significantly to the deepening of bilateral relations", adding to the insult by this government. Nigeria has retaliated too. One of the country's politicians, Abike Dabiri-Erewa, stated that if the changes go ahead, the government would force Britons to pay £20,000 to enter the country.

So the economic rifts that will be caused by this policy are damaging to say the least. Labour politicians have been urging the government to do more to promote trade. Chuka Umunna, in what I think is a first for a shadow cabinet business spokesman, recently led a trade mission to Africa and has been pointing out the long term investment potential of nations such as Nigeria and Ghana. Chuka reminded us that "Ghana is on course to be the eighth fastest growing economy in the world between 2011 and 2015. The IMF expects the Nigerian economy to grow by 7 per cent this year alone."

Nigeria is the seventh largest country in the world and, according to a UN report, its population is set to exceed that of the United States by 2050. In fact, the west African nation will start to compete with China as the second most populous country in the world.

With such a fast-growing population, infrastructure requirements will be absolutely key to Nigeria’s development and the UK now risks losing engineering and trade links with the country because of the British government’s perceived hostility on this issue.

Similarly, we all know that India is a rising force to be reckoned with. The country's economy is growing at an average of, with the IMF forecasting its 2018 GDP levels at $2,980bn. But despite the Cameron government's rhetoric, visa restrictions are already having an impact on the UK’s economic ties with India, with universities reporting a fall in student numbers. The Home Secretary might as well put up a sign saying the UK isn’t open for business.

When I asked the Prime Minister this week if he thought the bond scheme would help or hinder trade, he told me that Theresa May was looking at bonds in order to deal with 'economic migrants' but the bond scheme is no answer to the problem he wants to solve. There are serious questions about how the scheme will work. A £1,000 bond scheme for visitor visas was considered by the last Labour government but soon dropped for fears that it would be unworkable and unfair to the poorest families, while doing nothing to deal with illegal immigration.

 

In recent days in my own Leicester constituency, diaspora communities have reacted with dismay. Everyone accepts we need a system of managed migration alongside measures to deal with illegal immigration. But a bond scheme will hurt genuine visitors who don’t abuse the system. At a local temple over the weekend, constituents asked me if it was really fair that their relations should have to put up £3,000 to attend a graduation or a family wedding or a funeral, or even just visit an old friend. It’s a fair question, so here’s hoping the Home Secretary backs down.

Theresa May arrives to attend a meeting at Downing Street on May 23, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South. 

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.