04/04/2015
With almost a triumphal flourish in yesterday's debate, we saw Nigel Farage
declare that, "There's nothing we can do" about immigration, as long as we remain in the EU.
Yet, while seductively attractive to the weak-minded, the dishonesty of this position has been rehearsed at length on this blog, and in more detail in
Flexcit. But not only are there a plenty of things that can be done, in or out of the EU, the implied solution â leaving the EU â is not even a remedy.
The game Farage is playing, of course, is to use immigration as a stick with which to beat the EU, thereby - ostensibly â strengthening the case for leaving. But he is careful to not to reveal that the bulk of immigration comes from outside the EU.
Nor would leaving the EU,
per se, stop the flow of incomers from the other 27 member states. Licit movement would simply be replaced by irregular migration, which would be fiendishly difficult to stop.
Why this matters so much to genuine EU "outers", though, is that the almost irrational emphasis on immigration leads Farage and his acolytes to reject the best chance for a "quick and dirty" exit, adopting the "Norway Option". This, with its participation in the EEA Agreement, requires freedom of movement, which is seen as no advance on full EU membership.
In fact, there are significant differences between EU and EEA membership. While freedom of movement in the former requires admission of all comers from EU member states, the EEA freedom is actually limited to free movement of workers. There are no rights for dependents, families or non-economically active persons.
This, incidentally, makes the EEA Agreement far more desirable than the so-called Swiss Option â often touted as an alternative. Under the
1999 Agreement free movement of people, the
text of which provides for rights of residence "for persons not pursuing an economic activity" and for "members of the family, irrespective of their nationality" (Articles 6 & 7).
The exclusion of dependents would, in itself, reduce much of the burden on public services, perhaps attenuating the
primary school crisis about which we are invited to be concerned.
That aside, though, what also came over from the debate - and Mr Farage's triumphalism â was the inability of the other leaders to offer a coherent immigration policy, and their reluctance thus to engage. This has
Stephen Glover noting the refusal of the political class to address the question that most troubles ordinary people.
That, in itself, demonstrates a lack of competence and vision within the said "political class" for, as we have remarked, there is plenty that can be done to check immigration â in or out of the European Union.
More specifically, as we have noted many times, rather than expect instant results from any one action â and nothing from something as unrealistic as "controlling our borders" â we need to address in their totality the "push-pull" factors that drive migration.
In this, we can employ a philosophy to which we were directed by
Boiling Frog, one which was employed by Team GB
Olympic Cycling Team as their "secret weapon" in scooping up seven out of ten medals in the contest.
As explained by British Cycling's performance director Dave Brailsford, underpinning their success was the philosophy of "marginal gains". This came from the idea that "if you broke down everything you could think of that goes into riding a bike, and then improved it by one percent, you will get a significant increase when you put them all together".
You do a series of tiny things which, in themselves deliver only marginal gains and, by themselves, do not achieve very much. But, if they are clumped together, they make a big difference.
In terms of pull factors,
we have posited that enforcing HMO standards, removing "beds in sheds", taking illegal foreign-registered cars off the road, insisting that the minimum wage is paid, as well as limiting benefits, will give us a series of "marginal gains" which, collectively, will alter the balance of advantage for would-be migrants, between staying at home, coming the UK, or going elsewhere.
All that is needed is the political will and that, more than anything, is probably what is missing, opening the way for the demagogic Mr Farage to peddle his empty mantras.
The tragedy of this is that, in the vacuum of thinking that afflicts our established Westminster politicians, Mr Farage is intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of seeking to control immigration â which, with the "marginal gains" philosophy, is eminently possible â he is seeking to "control our borders" â which is not. No country which admits 32 million legal visitors each year can ever aspire to that state of affairs.
But if in "marginal gains" our "Team GB" has given us a name for something which hangs together as a credible policy, we could at least embrace it. In any event, we need to walk away from the quick-fix that Farage has on offer, and which, if we allow it, will lose us an "in-out" referendum.
