EU referendum briefing
for the Pontyclun Facebook Hub
Len Arthur
Recently there was a long string on the Pontyclun Hub about
voting in the EU referendum. It was started by a post that was rightly pointed
out, by others, not to be correct, however a huge range of points were raised.
As part of the discussion I volunteered to produce some background information
and references to help the debate running up to the referendum on 23 June. This
will be posted on my personal blog and can be updated in response to comments
and questions during that time.
It is a personal work and cannot avoid being influenced by my
academic background and personal commitment to internationalism and a yes vote.
I’ve tried to be rounded in the comments but clearly it is not possible to be
totally impartial. This should be countered by the document being in the public
forum and can be added to as the debate progresses.
I’ve been through all the comments and pulled out what seem to
be the key issues raised by people so far:
1. Migration
Hub comments
Concerns: asylum seekers; Turkey; pressure on services;
pressure on our ‘civilization’ ‘culture’ ‘society’ ‘being overrun’; undermines
conditions, jobs, benefits; security.
Benefits: free movement good for all; freedom to travel;
existing agreements lost; migrants benefit economy; what is the future for of
British people living in other EU countries?;
Turkey not being fast tracked; talk of subjective factors racist.
Numbers
Net migration – is the difference between people who leave the
UK for more than a year against those who come in for more than for a year. The
latest confirmed figures are for 2014 and these show a 641,000 inflow against a
323,000 outflow so a net migration of 318,000.
Putting these figures in proportion - the population of the UK in
2015 was 64,680m so 318,000 represents an increase of 0.5%.
The net figure for 2014 is the highest for 10 years but during
that time has been as low as 163,000.
In 2014 193,000 came for study purposes and 284,000 for work and
83,000 were UK citizens returning. So of the 641,000 inflow 276,000 were
students or returning UK citizens.
50% of migrants only intend to stay for 1-2 years.
Migration from the EU accounts for 42% of the inflow. 46% of
non EU migrants were for study.
24,914 claimed asylum in 2014.
The latest information shows that the UK population is composed
of 13.1% foreign born and 8.5% non British citizens.
By contrast in New Zealand 25.2% of the population are foreign
born and is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.
In contrast about 5.5 million British citizens live abroad,
around 10% of the current UK population, many taking advantage of the freedoms
to live in Europe with over 750,000 in Spain alone.
It seems in terms of the
numbers it is important to see the issue in proportion and that if students and
returning British citizens are taken into account there is a smaller net inflow
of migrants. Most come to work or study and there is a high turnover with
around half leaving again after two years. The freedom to migrate cuts both
ways with the equivalent of 10% of the UK population choosing to live and work
in another country.
Migration Economic costs and benefits
However, in the longer term the Office of Budget Responsibility
in its most recent estimates, proposes that higher migration will make a large
contribution to the reduction of the public sector deficit.
Pressure on services
Public services are under pressure across the UK due to Government
austerity policies. These cuts are affecting all areas of the UK and are the
main source of the problems of provision.
0.5% of NHS spending is on overseas
visitors – those from the EU balanced by reciprocal payments arrangements. As
argued by the King’s Fund the contribution of trained medical staff from
overseas more than outweighs any costs.
Housing provision is in crisis due to the way the private
sector fails to provide sufficient homes to meet the demand and social housing
to fill the gap is discouraged by government policy. Migrants’ experience of
housing is the same as UK citizens in the long run. In the short term they rely
on rented accommodation.
Benefits - foreign born migrants as a proportion of the UK
workforce receive less out of work benefits but more in tax credits - but see
next section. This largely relates to EU residents as stronger restrictions
apply to people from outside the EU.
It also cuts both ways - with UK workers receiving benefits in
the EU
Jobs, pay and conditions
Foreign national workers make up 10.5% of the workforce in
2014.
Employer pressures to cut costs through wages, conditions and
job opportunities exist all the time. The most pressing issue is thus ensuring
all workers have protection not blaming migrants.
A real living wage - not a re-named minimum wage - should be
made a legal requirement; trade unions should be given back the protection to
strike and organise; and enforcement of this actually take place.
Legal protection at work supported and aided by EU law and regulation significant employment rights gains that continue to accrue
to UK workers as a result of our EU membership. These are wide ranging in
scope, including access to paid annual holidays, improved health and safety
protection, rights to unpaid parental leave, rights to time off work for urgent
family reasons, equal treatment rights for part-time, fixed-term and agency
workers, rights for outsourced workers, and rights for workers’ representatives
to receive information and be consulted, particularly in the context of
restructuring:
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20employment%20rights%20and%20the%20EU.pdf
This is what is happening now:
And
Turkey
Talks have been re-opened for Turkey to join the EU and have a
long way to go.
Easier visa restriction talks have also started and could take
some time.
Visa arrangements already operate of course - check for
yourself:
Security
The UK is not part of the Schengen agreement on open borders
for EU citizens. The argument that our border controls and security are weak
was countered in the article below, pointing out that the UK carries out
security checks on all people entering the UK and has turned 6000 away since
2010. As ever the issue of why terrorism takes place and what can be done
cannot be reduced to issues around border controls.
Subjective issues
Concepts of ‘civilisation’ ‘culture’ ‘society’ are subjective
and difficult to define in an agreed way. They overlap with people’s
understanding of their personal identity which is subject to change and can be
contradictory. We should be careful therefore, of ascribing fixed attributes to
other individuals and groups of people. When associated with terms such as being
‘overrun’ by others to whom these concepts have been ascribed in this way it
opens the door to being racist:
We should be very careful in using these terms and clearly
define what we mean when we do so.
2. Costs and benefits of
EU membership
HUB comments
Concerns: it costs us too much; money get back is ours; not
spending on EU will mean less cuts; protect steel; big enough economy go by
ourselves
Benefits: general economic growth; Wales has benefitted; no
evidence Government will spend instead
of cut; economic dangers in leaving.
UK EU payments and returns
Our current 2016/17 gross contribution to the EU is £18.4bn.
However our current net contribution following rebates and redistribution of
funds to the public sector - like Welsh Government - leaves a figure of £9.4bn
or around 0.5% of the UKs annual gross domestic product (GDP).
In Wales we receive around an additional £700m per year from
the EU over and above the budget allocated by the UK government.
There are also other returns which may not be included in the
public sector payments. For example one of the largest spending items of the EU
is on research. Horizon 2020 is the EU research and innovation budget of E79bn.
British Universities pulled down £687m for research and
innovation in 2013, a figure that is growing and other sums are pulled down to
fund their international work. This is vital as all knowledge is now global.
The employers organisation the CBI, also points to other
benefits and additional economic growth that are not so obvious.
There are different views on the extent of these wider benefits
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-sending-350m-week-brussels/21733
The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee is currently
reviewing all the evidence so currently we have to make our own judgements.
Perhaps we should take into account the reports that the
referendum is already adversely affecting investment and the exchange value of
the pound as an indicator of what might follow during the two years of negotiations
that would follow a no vote?
Big enough economy to go by ourselves?
‘Ours’ is an interesting
term as over 50% of the shares in Britain’s biggest companies are foreign owned
- giving huge control over the distribution of profits and future investment. That
situation will remain whether we were in or out of the EU and will have a key effect
on future investment decisions, flows of finance in our import and export
balance of payments.
The only way this could become ‘ours’ is through nationalisation
and democratic control.
Our dangerously wide deficit on imports and exports raises
questions about how successful our economy really is.
Return of the EU payments would also mean a loss of the money
flowing back - so the net figure of around £9.4bn is what is at stake and we
probably see back some of that as well. This is 0.5% of GDP and about 13% of the
current UK deficit of spending between tax income and public spending. With a
Government determined to ‘roll back’ the state and having problems of their own
making in covering the deficit, they are very unlikely to use any additional
money on public spending. That would need a change of government.
3. Democracy and power
HUB comments
Concerns: rule by Brussels not UK - % of EU laws; elected
governments overruled e.g. Greece; too much bureaucracy; MEP gravy train; voted
for trade agreement not EU; we obey, they don’t;
Benefits: Human rights legislation e.g. privacy battle;
redistribution to less rich areas; % of EU laws small. Elected MEPs.
EU democracy - basics
The Treaty of Lisbon is the fundamental document of the EU,
virtually the constitution.
Council of EU - composed of the elected ministers from each EU
country ‘Voice of EU member governments, adopting EU laws and coordinating EU
policies’. Together with the European Parliament the main decision making body.
Presidency of the Council - is held by each EU country on a 6
month rotating basis.
European Parliament - composed of 751 directly elected MEPs.
Wales has four. Elections are held every five years - the last ones were in
2014. It passes laws together with the Council of Ministers on proposals from
the European Commission. It cannot initiate its own legislation. President of
the Parliament is elected by the MEPs. It elects the President of the
Commission and approves the Commission as a body.
The European Commission is the politically independent
executive of the EU - it proposes and enforces legislation and policies. Run by
a President elected by MEPs - currently Jean-Claude Juncker - together with 28
Commissioners from each of the member states with specific areas of
responsibility.
The Court of Justice is the last resort court for cases brought
under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
European Court of Human Rights is quite separate from the above,
covering 47 countries, has a longer history and is responsible for enforcing
the European Convention of Human Rights.
The EU is directly
accountable to elected representatives from each of the 28 countries both in
terms of ministers and MEPs. Civil servants and Commissioners are employed
proportionately to member countries. Both courts above involve judges from all
member countries. Accountability and democracy does exist but could be much
improved, for example MEPs could have the right to initiate legislation; there
could be much more openness in decision making and the Treaty of Lisbon will
need changing to allow more bottom up democracy and social as opposed to
economic legislation.
UK democracy and the EU
Estimates of the proportions of UK law affected by the EU vary
between 6.3% - 84% it all depends on what kind of laws you are talking about. Completely
new Acts of of the UK Parliament include the lowest proportion of direct effect
of EU legislation.
Democracy and accountability works both ways, with the UK
having democratic representation in Europe as can be seen above.
For many the European Convention of Human Rights and the
European Charter of Fundamental Rights are seen as a beneficial outcome of the
experiences of the first and second world wars. Some of the basic rights such
as a ban on capital punishment and the rights to free speech, privacy and
association, including the specific right to join and be involved in a trade
union come from these organisations. See the reference above.
It is difficult to estimate what is too much regulation or
bureaucracy. It often depends on what you wish to see happen. The EU limitation
on mobile phone roaming charges in the EU would probably be widely supported
whereas the working time directive might not be. Animal welfare and public
health requirements again would generally be supported but require considerable
enforcement and inspection.
Trade agreements all involve restrictions and limitation on the
UK government; see the debate over the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership).
Norway and Switzerland are not part of the EU but have to abide
by the trade agreement restrictions without any democratic recourse through
elected or ministerial representation.
It is difficult to be definitive about the UK abiding by EU
rules and others not. The rebate of the UK payment to the EU would probably be
seen by other countries as us not playing the game. It is probably the case
that Britain could make a stronger case and push harder in the EU but that
depends on commitment for it to work.
It is generally acknowledged that MEPs and employees of the
Commission are well rewarded. Personally this has never bothered me as it
provides a benchmark for all of us to argue for.
Finally of Greece, as well as Italy, Portugal, Spain and
Ireland where democratically elected governments were forced to accept
austerity cuts, hitting workers hard in order to save the Euro and the banking
system. The inability of the EU to deal with the human refugee crisis is another
example of the humane treatment of people not being put first.
Both these situations go to the heart of the dynamic tensions
that exist within the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon: an organisation established
to support private business and come to terms with international competition
whilst at the same time try to bring along the population with democracy and
social benefits. At times of crisis banks and business comes first and nations
retreat into nationalism.
Personally I would argue that we should work with people across
the EU to put people first and argue to improve democracy as an antidote to
nationalism. The vote on the EU is not really something that is either this or
that but what is the best way of achieving the changes we all think are
required. For me it is about pushing back the market and the rich and
increasing our power through democracy and not nationalism.
Finally a personal plea that relates to points made about the first and second world wars:
"The history of the UK is inextricably linked to world history
and in particular, Europe. The development of capitalism and the various forms
of imperialism over the last 400 years have accelerated this process. The last
100 years have seen two European wars of utter annihilation, which are of also
part of a world conflict. Like nearly every other family I know, mine and that
of my partner’s have been scarred by the deaths and experiences of these
conflicts. The consequential wars have continued since 1945. Working class
support for these wars was justified and won in nationalist terms, weakening
the solidarity and international links that may have prevented them and
challenged capitalism at the same time. This was, let us not forget, the key
failure of the second international. That nationalism continues to undermine
us, with potential fatal co consequences."
