Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Osborne knows President Obama won by blaming a predecessor (Independent)

How to deal with the recent past is a big unresolved issue for Labour, writes Steve Richards.

2. The Petraeus affair is short on substance (Financial Times)

The scandal did not change how the general did his job or was regarded by colleagues, writes John Gapper.

3. Bercow and his bullies shame our Parliament (Daily Telegraph)

The Speaker is leading an ambush by MPs of the body set up to control their expenses, says Peter Oborne.

4. Forces for Change (Times) (£)

Today’s elections for police and crime commissioners will help to drive reform in a service that has resisted change, argues a Times editorial.

5. This Sri Lanka massacre shows UN has not learned from its failures in Rwanda (Independent)

Operatives allowed themselves to be bullied by a murderous government, says Isabel Hilton.

6. Policy ploys risk UK economic credibility (Financial Times)

The Chancellor should remember it was exactly the policy of hiding known liabilities that got Greece into its current mess, says Chris Giles.

7. Let’s cut crime, not cops: why you need to vote in today's police commissioner elections (Daily Mirror)

New commissioners can resist Conservative cuts and privatisation, writes John Prescott.

8. Stop going on about gay weddings, Mr Osborne, and honour your vows on tax help for married couples (Daily Mail)

It’s the economy, not gay marriage, that will determine the Tories’ electoral fate, says Stephen Glover.

9. Austerity is here to stay, and we'd better get used to it (Guardian)

We think we know all about the rise of Asia and the decline of the west, writes Martin Kettle. But we've barely begun to grasp what it really means.

10. Childcare: I never thought I’d say it, but Nick Clegg is right (Daily Telegraph)

There can be no further progress in equality between the sexes until men and women genuinely regard raising a child as a shared task, writes Allison Pearson.

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.