Poornima Manco

Author

Guest blogger

The trouble with Brexit (Part 4) – Project Fear: EU Immigration

by

As a Dutch person, there is one particular issue about the UK that has had me puzzled for years: Why on earth does the UK, a country that is so obsessed with immigration, not have a national registration system for its citizens?

When our children were younger, my husband and I used to have au pairs living with us at our flat in London. Most of those au pairs were Dutch, and as soon as they arrived, they would usually ask us where they were supposed to register their arrival. “You are not required to get registered anywhere”, I used to reply. “So how will the authorities know where I am?”, they asked. “Well, don’t take it personally, but they’re really not interested! If you were to stay here, and get a proper job at some point in the future, you would need to get a National Insurance number and register with HMRC to pay your taxes. But right now, you don’t have to go to town hall and tell someone where you live, like you do at home. I have been here since 17th September 1990, but that arrival date isn’t registered anywhere in the UK.“

The reason why all of us cloggies were so surprised was because we were used to doing things very differently at home. In The Netherlands, there is one big citizen’s database, which covers the entire population of about 17 million people. No real distinction is being made between people who were born in Holland, or those who moved there later: everyone is required to be registered at their home address. When you move house, even if it’s just down the road, you must inform the authorities.

Everybody also has their own Burger Service Nummer, or BSN (citizen’s service number). You need this for everything to do with your administration, and you will get asked for it on a regular basis. You want to open a bank account, or get health insurance? Not without your BSN. Receive your salary? Apply for benefits? Make a hospital appointment? You and your BSN are inextricably linked.

In contrast, the British system has never been as rigorous. There are some registration structures in place, of course, like the electoral roll, HMRC, or GP patient lists, but there is no Dutch-style umbrella government database that covers everything and everybody comprehensively.  Do you remember Grenfell Tower? Nobody knew exactly how many people lived there when the fire broke out. In fact, ten people managed to convince the authorities that they were Grenfell residents when they weren’t, and received financial assistance that they were not entitled to, because there was no registration system.

So yes, the Dutch way of doing things may be a bit much for anyone who is concerned about privacy and personal liberties. And to be fair, it is a bit like a mix of George Orwell’s 1984 and the 1960’s tv series The Prisoner: Big Brother is watching you, and you are most definitely a number. But at least the authorities know who lives where, how long they’ve been there, and who is entitled to healthcare coverage or unemployment benefits.

Is it the EU’s fault that the UK doesn’t have a citizen’s registration system? Of course not. The UK is a sovereign country, that has made its own decisions. Do other EU countries have it? Yes, many of them do. The UK has just chosen not to.

So if there is no real system that tells you who has moved in and out of the country, how does the UK actually measure immigration? Well, you know those nice ladies who sometimes jump in front of you at airports, wanting to ask you a few questions? Believe it or not, but the UK’s immigration count is for about 90% based on those questions, that culminate in the so-called International Passenger Survey (IPS). The IPS operates at 19 airports, 8 ports and the Channel Tunnel rail link, and a sample of passengers get asked where they’re from, why they’re in the UK and how long they are planning to stay. That data is then combined with numbers from the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), and the UK census (which is carried out every 10 years). Based on all of that, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) publishes a migration update every three months.

As you can imagine, those final figures are more an educated guess than an exact science, but there are a few things that we can deduct from them. One of them is that immigration from non-EU countries, which has nothing to do with Brexit for obvious reasons, has been consistently higher than EU immigration for decades: at the moment, net figures hover around 261,000 a year. And the UK has always had full control over immigration from non-EU countries, of course.

Talking about non-EU countries, whatever happened to Turkey? During the referendum, big Vote Leave posters shown all over the country informed us that “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU”. Surely that must be imminent by now?

No, it isn’t, because it wasn’t true. Turkey applied to join as far back as 1987 (32 years ago), and in all that time has only managed to get through 1 out of the 35 chapters that it needs to complete in order to join. Negotiations have completely stalled in recent years due to Turkey’s human rights violations, so it really doesn’t look like the country will be eligible anytime soon. And even if Turkey ever does manage to complete the other 34 chapters through some kind of miracle, then every single EU country, including the UK, can use its veto to block accession. So let’s not mince words: the language on the poster was a blatant lie.

Surely the Leave campaign must have known this? So why did it choose to mislead the public like that? Well, it’s probably for the same reason why Nigel Farage’s Ukip produced that famous Breaking Point poster: because the fear factor is such an effective and persuasive tool. Remember that this was 2016, when both Isis and president Assad were committing terrible atrocities in Syria, and the refugee crisis was in full flow. Against a background of tabloid newspapers that had been fanning the flames of fear for years, many people were terrified of the two particular bogeymen du jour: muslim terrorists and refugees. And seeing as a combination of both was clearly about to infiltrate the UK, Trojan Horse-style, we needed a heroic act like Brexit to stop that from happening.

Never mind that the Breaking Point poster showed people who had nothing to do with Brexit, because they were from outside the EU (there was a sea of brown faces, when there is no EU country where most people have brown skin – was this a bit of a dog whistle to racists?). The people in the poster were obviously supposed to be Syrian refugees, and the implication was that the UK would be forced to take in scores of them by the EU. Never mind that the UK only engages selectively with EU rules on asylum and immigration, and is not even part of the second phase of the EU’s Common Asylum Policy. Never mind that even if someone is eventually granted refugee status in another EU country (a painstakingly long process) it takes years to get an EU passport so he or she can travel abroad – 7 years in Germany, for instance. Never mind that the UK isn’t part of the Schengen zone and has full control over its borders (apart from illegal immigration, but that’s already illegal, of course). And never mind the fact that there are about 1.8 billion muslims in the world, and none of us would be here if just one percent of them wanted to blow people up – so let’s keep a little perspective.

Never mind any of that: the simple Leave campaign messages about immigrants resonated with people, even when they made no sense at all, and even if immigration from EU and non-EU countries got completely mixed up in public discussions. Facts didn’t matter; feelings did. It was in this toxic climate of hatred and resentment towards foreigners that pro-migrant MP Jo Cox was murdered by far-right terrorist Thomas Mair, just hours after the Breaking Point poster was revealed.

So let’s now talk about the only type of migration that is relevant in the context of Brexit: migration from EU countries. Net migration from EU countries was around 57,000 in the year up to September 2018 – the lowest it has been in years, and down from 189,000 in the year before the referendum. How much control does the UK have over EU citizens coming into the UK, if any? To answer this question, we must again make a distinction between the free movement of people within the Schengen zone, and freedom of movement as part of the Single Market.

Last time, we found out that the UK and the Republic of Ireland have an opt-out from the Schengen zone, that there is a physical border, and that everybody coming into the UK or Ireland still has to go through passport control. The Schengen zone is therefore pretty much irrelevant in the UK’s Brexit debate, because the UK is not part of it.

What does matter, however, is the famous ‘freedom of movement’ principle. That does apply to the UK, because it is in the Single Market – and in order to enjoy the advantages of the Single Market countries have to adhere to the Four Freedoms:

  1. Freedom of goods
  2. Freedom of services
  3. Freedom of capital
  4. Freedom of movement.

It is this freedom of movement principle that became a big issue during the Brexit debate. For many people who voted for Brexit, it was a no-brainer: we can’t just let anybody come into the UK; there should be some kind of limit to it. Particularly when it comes to people from poorer EU countries, with lower wages and lower living standards, who may be entitled to claim benefits in the much richer UK. “Surely we are not being unreasonable if we don’t want to ‘sponsor’ EU immigrants who are going to sit on their backside and sponge off the state, while the rest of us have to work hard every day and pay our taxes?”, they reasoned. Sounds fair enough, right?

Actually, even though there is a perception in the UK that the EU has some kind of open door policy, freedom of movement is not an unconditional right at all. Article 7 of the EU Citizen’s Rights Directive states that after three months, if you’re an EU citizen who moves to another EU country, you must:

  • have a job or be self-employed, earning money and paying taxes (in other words: you are economically active); or
  • have ‘sufficient resources’ in order not to become a ‘burden on the social assistance system of the host country’, and have comprehensive sickness insurance (in other words: you are financially independent).

That’s it. Either you work (or you’re in education), or you’re so rich already that you don’t need to work. In addition to that, immigrants can also be sent back for reasons like public policy, public security and public health, and David Cameron’s February 2016 EU deal gave the UK stronger powers to deport EU criminals.

This is where the UK’s, shall we say, rather lax administration system comes in. Because how can you send people back, if you don’t know who has come in, and where they live? EU citizens who moved to the UK have never been obliged to register at their local municipality, and once they arrive in the country, the authorities don’t really keep tabs on most of them. As long as they keep a low profile, it is pretty easy to get lost in a big city like London.

Sensible restrictions on the freedom of movement principle have always been available under EU law, but successive UK governments have never bothered enforcing them. They have never insisted that EU immigrants had to have a job, or be wealthy enough to support themselves. They have never demanded that they have comprehensive sickness insurance. And they never deported anyone who wasn’t economically active or financially independent after 3 months – possibly because they wouldn’t know how or where to find them!

It’s a similar story regarding the so-called A8 countries: 8 Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004. It would have been perfectly possible for the UK to impose temporary labour market restrictions on workers from these countries under EU law. However, the UK, Ireland and Sweden decided not to. This meant that there was a sudden surge of Eastern European immigrants, who often settled in rural areas in which immigration was uncommon.

My mum and dad always used to say: “Everything that has too in front of it is not good: too much, too little, too excessive etc.” Everything in moderation, in other words. The arrival of large numbers of migrants 10-15 years ago (too many, too sudden, some would argue) did put an extra strain on schools, housing and GP surgeries in certain parts of the country. This often happened in areas that successive governments had already underinvested in for years. But is worth remembering that the vast majority of those migrants are law-abiding citizens who work, pay their taxes and therefore pay their own way (and the ones who don’t shouldn’t have been allowed to stay after 3 months according to EU rules, remember?). What would really help poorer areas in the UK is not so much getting rid of the foreigners (or the EU, which has invested very heavily in those areas), but some proper government funding for local services, particularly in those areas that have been left behind for decades.

Another common argument is that some (mainly Eastern European) communities should integrate a bit better into British society. That may be true to a degree, but it is a lot harder to integrate when you’re constantly being met with hostility, the locals don’t talk to you and you don’t feel welcome. And isn’t it funny how some of the same people who have a problem with Polish shops love going to the Dog & Duck and that little expat shop that sells hobnobs when they are in Benidorm?

Listen to what Conservative Lord Michael Heseltine has to say about immigration and freedom of movement, and about someone who was Home Secretary for 6 years between 2010-2016. Someone whose name will always be associated with Brexit, but also with expressions like ‘hostile environment’, ‘queue jumpers’, ‘Windrush scandal’, ‘go home vans’ and ’citizens of nowhere’: Theresa May.

“The interesting thing in the European context is that now the overseas immigration from outside Europe is in a different league or scale to those from Europe. And that was the case whilst Theresa May was home secretary for all those years. Why did she do nothing about it, if this was the burning issue? And the reason why I think she didn’t do anything is because our social services depend upon the skills of the doctors and the nurses in the health service that have come from outside that actually make immigration a very important strength to our economy. And the government didn’t want to be put in a position where it is obviously controlling these numbers, creating shortages, lengthening the queues, in a way that would have happened if immigration had been controlled in the way they wanted it to be.” 

Lord Heseltine is absolutely right: immigrants are indeed a ‘very important strength to our economy’, particularly to the NHS. The UK is lucky enough to have an extremely low unemployment rate, which together with an ageing population means that there are shortages in certain sectors of the economy that immigrants – both skilled and unskilled – help fill. 9.5% of doctors are EU nationals, for instance (23% of doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital even), as well as 16% of dentists and 6.4% of nurses and midwives. From care workers to seasonal farm labourers, teachers to abattoir vets, surgeons to chambermaids, EU citizens have been a vital part of the UK economy for years.

And not only do most of those EU immigrants work (83% of those of working age, compared to 76% of UK nationals), there is overwhelming evidence that they actually boost public finances rather than costing the UK money. That is because they contribute more in taxes, and make much less use of benefits and public services than the average British person. And yes, this includes people from those so-called A8 countries I mentioned earlier. Immigrants from these countries often do low-paid work that local British people don’t want to do, such as fruit picking, factory work or cleaning. But their high employment rates and hard work offset the fact that they usually get paid less than either UK citizens or immigrants from the older EU countries, meaning that they still contribute more than they take out.

A major study on the impact of 20 years of immigration (up to 2015) by the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance concluded  that “EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they use public services, and therefore help to reduce the budget deficit. Immigrants do not have a negative effect on local services such as education, health or social housing.” The report found that rather than being the fault of immigrants, these problems were the result of the 2008 cash and the slow economic recovery. Another huge study found that European migrants made a positive net contribution of £22 billion to UK public finances between 2000-2011. A research paper published by University College London states that immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) paid 34% more in tax than they took out, whereas UK-born citizens paid for only 89% of the benefits and services they received through taxes, costing the state £624 billion between 2001 and 2011.

In other words: EU immigrants actually sponsor British society, not the other way round.

The reason for this is that they are much more likely to be of working age than the general population. Think about it: until we are, say, around 20 years old, we cost society money, in childcare and education costs. We then start working, hopefully for several decades, and instead of taking, we start contributing to the public coffers instead. Our income taxes pay for schools and hospitals, teachers’ salaries and the police. At the end of our lives, when we need more medical attention and draw our pensions, we become expensive again.

Likewise, your typical Polish builder arrives in the UK fully educated and immunised, so the expensive early part of his life has been paid for by his home country. He works and pays his taxes to his host country during the long productive years of his life, so the UK benefits from him and gets pretty good value for money. And quite often, he retires ‘back home’ before he needs a care home or a hip operation.

The UK needs immigrants to fill jobs. Some people seem to fantasise that British workers will replace them all after Brexit, but evidence suggests otherwise. Many EU citizens have already left the UK in recent years, and this has not lead to a sudden uptake of jobs by British workers, but to fruit rotting in the fields, and to 100,000 vacancies in the NHS. Some of those vacancies are having to be filled by temporary staff, which costs the NHS more money, and it is likely that EU workers will simply be replaced by non-EU workers. Will the NHS really be any better off when your doctor comes from Argentina instead of Spain, or from China instead of Malta?

So how do those 3.6 million EU citizens in the UK, and the 1.3 million British citizens in the EU-27 countries feel about Brexit? A total of nearly 5 million people, most of whom didn’t even get a vote over their own future during the referendum? Well, some of their testimonies have been documented in two poignant books called “In Limbo” and “In Limbo Too”. This is how one Italian lady in the UK expresses herself:

“One morning, after years and even decades, you suddenly feel unwelcome, unwanted, betrayed. Your certainties, your life and your security are gone. Through no fault of your own you are stuck in a painful limbo.” (Elena Remigi)

Sadly, it sums up how a lot of people feel. For years, many decent EU citizens have been portrayed as freeloaders and parasites by the Leave campaign and the British press, even when the opposite was true. Some have even been mixed up with terrorists or refugees in the public mind. Foreign simply equalled bad. It is one thing to be under appreciated, but it is quite another thing when your presence in the country is the second biggest reason why people all around you voted to leave the EU.

We are not just talking about anonymous immigrants here. These EU citizens are our neighbours, friends and colleagues, who have jobs, spouses, children and social lives in the UK. It’s the lady who looks after your parents in their care home, the guy who fixed your roof, your Amazon delivery driver. People who contribute to society, both in taxes and in services, and have often done so for many years. They exercised their right to move to another country in good faith, and have now found that the rules have suddenly changed. Some are not even sure if they will be entitled to Settled Status (a brand new registration system that only applies to EU citizens) because they may have taken a career break to look after children or a sick relative, and now the government suddenly and retroactively demands to see proof of comprehensive health insurance – something it never mentioned before.

And freedom of movement works both ways, of course: Brexit also takes away the rights of British citizens themselves to live, work, study or retire in any of the other 27 EU countries. Something that a lot of voters, particularly older people, may not have taken into consideration in 2016. It means that their own children and grandchildren will now be denied the chance to enjoy any of the benefits of the freedom of movement that they themselves had access to, like living in Prague for a year, or studying in Sweden under the EU’s Erasmus programme. The British people essentially voted to lose their own rights in this respect, because they will be stripped of their EU citizenship.

For years, successive governments have only been too happy to join in the populist blame game against immigrants. Nobody has been brave enough to go against the grain and articulate the benefits of immigration and the work that EU citizens do, or the advantages of free movement for UK citizens. Perhaps it suited them when the victims of austerity and government policies blamed the foreigners lower down the social ladder for their plight, rather than the politicians making the decisions higher up the ladder. Is it any wonder that in this hostile environment, there has been a rise in hate crimes against EU citizens, and against all immigrants in general?

In a sensible Brexit deal, there will be some kind of safety net, and the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU-27 countries will most likely be protected. But the UK has deliberately left the option of a No Deal on the table during the past few years, meaning that those rights are in no way guaranteed. This is what has led to 3 years of uncertainty and anxiety. Not only do 5 million people still not know exactly what their residency rights will be after Brexit (and thankfully, most EU countries have been very generous in this respect), they also don’t know if they will be able to keep any of the associated rights regarding employment, frontier work, education, health and social care, pensions and voting rights. 5 million human beings without a voice or vote, who didn’t deserve to be used as bargaining chips in some cynical political game. But sadly, that is exactly what has happened to them.

Next time, let’s examine the number one reason why people voted for Brexit: sovereignty.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

The trouble with Brexit (Part 3): Project Fear: non-EU immigration

by

Where were you born?

And what did you do to deserve that?

If you are reading this, there is a pretty good chance that you grew up in a relatively rich country, possibly a Western democracy. It is probably safe to assume that you have never experienced hunger or war. You are likely to be well-educated, well-travelled and well-fed. You have probably never been tortured for your beliefs.

What would life have been like for us if we had been born in Rwanda, Iraq or North Korea? Would we be completely different people now? Or would we still essentially be ‘us’, but just with a different religion or skin colour?

None of us get to choose where we are born. It is all down to luck. For far too many people in the world: bad luck. For some of us: good luck. Our sons are not child soldiers; our daughters have not been raped by intruders coming into our village at night. We are the lucky ones. Tonight, thank God it’s them, instead of you.

Sometimes, it’s good to not only count our blessings, but also to remember that it’s only through a fortunate accident of birth that we ended up in a First World country, and not through any merit of our own. So let’s have some sympathy for those less fortunate than us. Let’s treat other people with a basic level of respect and compassion. Yes, even migrants and refugees.

Unfortunately, some British newspapers seem to disagree with this premise. If you are one of their regular readers – in particular, if you read the Daily Mail, the Daily Express or, to a slightly lesser degree, the Sun – you will be very much used to headlines like these:

  • “EU killers and rapists we’ve failed to deport” (Daily Mail)
  • “Migrants milking Britain’s benefits” (Daily Express)
  • “Fury over plot to let 1.5m Turks into Britain” (Daily Mail)

The first thing you notice is the fact that migrants are usually painted in an extremely one-sided, negative light. Emotive words such as ‘invasion’, ‘flooding in’ and ‘scroungers’ provoke instinctive feelings of fear or anger inside us, and are used again and again. It is ‘us’ – good, decent, law-abiding citizens – versus ‘them’ – the nasty others, who threaten our way of life.

Sometimes, media hostility goes even further than that. In an article in the Sun in 2015, columnist Katie Hopkins compared refugees fleeing war zones to “cockroaches”. And: “Some of our towns are festering sores, plagued by swarms of migrants and asylum seekers, shelling out benefits like Monopoly money.”

In 1930’s Germany, Nazi media also compared Polish people to cockroaches (an ‘East European species of cockroach’, to be precise), and Jewish people to rats. “German Jews pouring into this country” was the headline of an actual Daily Mail article in 1938. It was ‘us’ – good, decent, law-abiding citizens – versus ‘them’ – the nasty others, who threaten our way of life. Years and years of anger and fear towards those ‘others’ eventually led to yellow stars on coats, and piles of human hair in Auschwitz. Sadly, history teaches man that man does not learn from history.

This inflammatory language in the British media has not exactly gone unnoticed. In 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights urged the UK media and regulators to tackle tabloid hate speech, saying “History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonising foreigners and minorities. It is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes, or sell newspapers.” In 2016, Cambridge University found that “Mainstream media reporting about Muslim communities is contributing to an atmosphere of rising hostility towards Muslims in Britain.” In the same year, Leicester University warned that a wider surge in hate crimes against migrants had been “fuelled and legitimised by the media”. A campaign called Stop Funding Hate urges advertisers and other companies to stop associating themselves with tabloids that spread fear and division.

It was against this background that the EU referendum took place in June 2016. Whether their fear was real or imagined: many British people were so concerned about immigration, that it became the second biggest reason why they voted for Brexit. And who could blame them? ‘Taking back control of our borders’ seemed to make perfect sense, and the right thing to do.

So was their fear real, or had the media really been unfairly ‘demonising foreigners and minorities’ for years? Surely these newspapers just report the facts, and we shouldn’t expect them to NOT write about crimes that have been committed by ‘foreigners or minorities’, just out of a misplaced sense of political correctness?

Sure, that is absolutely true. We shouldn’t censor the news, just because it doesn’t fit in with our own biased point of view. Surely it is not a racist thing to say that there is a strong link between pedophile grooming gangs and men of Pakistani heritage, for example? Isn’t that just a fact? Don’t we have a right to know about high proportions of crimes being committed by certain ethnic groups?

Of course we do – and perhaps it is also perfectly understandable that when we now hear about that particular crime, we tend to make a mental association with certain Pakistani men. That is based on several criminal cases that we’ve read about in the news during the past few years. But it does raise the question why we don’t make the same link with white men. When it comes to child abuse and pedophilia as a whole for instance, nearly 90% of pedophiles are white, and 98% of them are men. Do those crimes get underreported, and do the crimes committed by Pakistani men, Muslims or asylum seekers get over reported? Is that the reason why we don’t have newspaper headlines telling us how dangerous white men actually are?

The problem mainly lies with the interpretation and reporting of facts. When a small proportion of ethnic minorities (‘they’) commit certain crimes, we hear about it everywhere. As a consequence, we tend to associate the entire group with that crime. But when a small proportion of ‘regular white folk’ (’we’) also commit certain crimes, we don’t hear about it as much – and if we do, we are sensible enough to keep things in perspective, and not blame the whole group. We just don’t generalise as much. Most Pakistani men are law-abiding citizens, and so are most white men, so we are talking about very small percentages of both groups that commit crimes. But public perception is totally different in both cases, and so is the language that we use.

There seem to be completely separate standards for separate groups of people. Foreigners who settle in the UK are immigrants, for instance, whereas British people who move abroad are expats. ‘Auf Wiedersehen, Pet’ was a series about British guys in Germany, who work hard to support their families back home – but Polish builders doing the same thing in the UK nowadays are stealing local people’s jobs. What’s the difference, really? Where are the headlines about British expats stealing local people’s jobs whilst living abroad?

And when it comes to Brexit and ‘those foreigners’: did we really need to take back control, and from whom exactly? Did the UK ever even lose control of its borders in the first place?

In order to answer these questions, we first need to make a distinction between two different terms within the EU immigration debate: freedom of movement within the Single Market, and free movement of people within the Schengen area.

As we saw in part one, the Single Market is the biggest and most prosperous free trading area on earth – so much so, that out of only 35 wealthy countries  (or ‘advanced economies’) in the world, 27 are inside the EU. Freedom of movement is an integral part of the success and prosperity of the Single Market, along with freedom of goods, services and capital. It is also one of the reasons why the US economy is so successful, as workers can go wherever they are needed at any given time.

These so-called four freedoms make trading within the Single Market that much more efficient and frictionless, by radically reducing red tape and border queues. At the moment, an EU driver who arrives in Dover with a truck full of goods only has to show his passport and a CMR form, and off he goes – he doesn’t need a visa, and the contents of the truck do not need to be checked if they originated in an EU country. Contrary to popular belief, freedom of movement is not unlimited though. It is just that the UK, for reasons best known to itself, has chosen not to enforce any EU-recommended limits to it (more about that next time).

The Schengen area may greatly overlap the Single Market/freedom of movement area, but it is not the same thing. This is particularly true for the UK, which is part of the Single Market, but negotiated an opt-out from the Schengen area along with the Republic of Ireland. Schengen, named after a small town in Luxembourg where the treaty was signed, is basically an area where you can move freely from country to country without having to show your passport. Imagine driving from Germany to Spain, for instance: you would drive through several countries, but there are either no checks at all or just minimal checks –  which is particularly helpful for the 1.7 million people who commute to work across a European border every day. Incidentally, those internal borders can be restored on a temporary basis during special circumstances.

At the same time, Schengen countries do have strong controls on their common external border, and have established a European Border and Coast Guard Agency called Frontex. They also have a joint Schengen visa. Apart from that, the Schengen Information System (SIS) allows them to share data on criminals, missing people or stolen property. Even though the UK is not part of Schengen, it still enjoys close police cooperation with Schengen countries, and it uses the SIS to exchange information on law enforcement.

Now that we understand both freedom of movement within the Single Market and the Schengen zone a bit better, let’s have a look at some groups of immigrants on whom the Brexit vote will have absolutely no effect, but who often get mixed into the whole debate anyway.

Let’s start with regular non-EU migrants. This one is easy: the UK has complete control over anyone who enters the UK from a country that is not in the EU.

Next: refugees. A refugee is defined as someone who is officially recognised as a person who is unable to live in his or her own country because of war or natural disaster, or owing to a well-founded fear of persecution – for instance because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. I would highly recommend that you read the harrowing poem Home by Warsan Shire, a young British woman of Somali origin. In it, she explains that “You have to understand, that no one puts their children in a boat, unless the water is safer than the land.” About 85% of the world’s refugees live in poor, developing countries, often in camps. The country hosting the most refugees is Turkey, followed by Pakistan, Uganda and Lebanon. Around 4.4 million Syrian refugees are being hosted by just two countries: Turkey and Lebanon. Famous refugees include Gloria Estefan (who fled Cuba with her family when she was a toddler), Albert Einstein (who fled Nazi persecution), Freddy Mercury (whose family fled to the UK from Zanzibar in 1964) and Rita Ora (who came to the UK as a refugee from Kosovo). Once a refugee is in a particular Schengen country, it is illegal for him or her to travel to another one, and it reflects negatively on their asylum application if they get found out.

An asylum seeker is someone who is still awaiting a decision on whether or not they will be granted refugee status. In the UK, around 32% of asylum seekers’ claims are successful, going up to about 47% on appeal. It is not illegal or ‘bogus’ to be refused asylum; it just means that you haven’t been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove that you are a refugee. The number of asylum seekers in the UK is relatively small compared to some other European countries: there were only around 26,000 applications for asylum made to the UK in 2017, whereas Germany had around 198,000, and Italy had 126,000. They formed only about 5% of total immigrants in 2018.

It may be worth noting that according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, there is no evidence that asylum seekers commit more crime than anyone else. They are actually more likely to be victims of crime because of who they are; getting threatened and spat at on a regular basis. In fact, islamophobia, anti-semitism and hate crimes in general have all been on the rise in the UK since the Brexit referendum.

Illegal immigrants are people who enter the UK unlawfully, or who stay longer than they are allowed to. They are likely to be removed if their immigration status is discovered by the authorities. A report by The Migration Advisory Committee estimates that the numbers are very small: around 2,366 in 2016-2017, and around 1,832 in 2017-2018. This include people who arrive by boat, as well as those who stow away on ferries and lorries. Generally speaking though, illegal immigrants will only come to the UK if there are employers (often British) who are willing to illegally employ them.

Contrary to some reports, the UK asylum system is actually pretty tough. Asylum seekers do not have the same rights as refugees or British people: they are not allowed to work or claim benefits for instance. If they have no other means of supporting themselves, they can receive asylum support of around £5.39 a day, which is less than £2,000 a year. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are not entitled to, and do not get, benefits from the UK’s welfare system.

It is ironic that a hard No Deal Brexit will probably have some side effects that its supporters may not be aware of. When the UK leaves the European Union, all treaties between the two parties will cease to apply. This includes something called the Dublin Regulations, which basically allows European countries to return asylum seekers to the country where they first entered the EU. There, their fingerprints would have been taken (determining the country of first entry), and these fingerprints would then have been entered into an EU database called Eurodac. In a No Deal scenario, UK will lose the right to return asylum seekers to other EU member states because the Dublin Regulations will no longer apply. It will lose access to Eurodac as well. Apart from that, it also means that the UK’s rule-making power in the EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) will end.

Even though we have all learned an awful lot more about the EU during the past few years, it is amazing how much misinformation is still out there. Also, in a country where ‘stranger danger’ stories are so prevalent and persuasive, it is easy to see the similarities between certain elements of the British press and the Leave campaign. Both rely heavily on the fear factor, and both have also been getting the facts wrong or distorted on a regular basis. Cue Nigel Farage’s infamous Breaking Point poster, and the fact that the Daily Mail has been banned as a source by Wikipedia due to its “poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

It is also quite remarkable that both the popular press and the Leave campaign have focused so much on non- EU immigrants, who don’t have anything to do with Brexit. As we have seen, the UK has complete control over its borders when it comes to non-EU migration – and the numbers of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are really pretty small. And crucially: the UK is an island, that is not part of the Schengen area. There is an actual, physical border with border checks, where everyone gets stopped and has to show their passports.

So yes, it may well be understandable that Mrs Outraged of Peterborough is extremely scared of foreign criminals. But we really should tell her that not only are the monsters under her bed not as big as she might imagine, Brexit is also not going to help her get rid of ‘those Pakistanis’ in her town. They probably have British passports – and besides, Pakistan is not in the EU, so it is totally irrelevant in this debate. And maybe, just maybe, she should try actually talking to some of those monsters. She might find out that that ‘they’ are actually not that different to her after all, and that The Others are really just human beings too.

Let’s end with the words of Michael Palin, who says: “I’ve actually been very reassured by travelling. It has made me feel the world is safer than you think it is, if you just read the news. Most people want to bring up their children, build their houses and live peacefully with their neighbours. They don’t want to kill anybody. Travelling is a very good way of confirming that the world is not a beastly place at all, but a place full of opportunity and great people.” Amen to that, Mr Palin.

Next time, let’s have a look at something that actually does matter in the Brexit debate: EU migration, and whether or not Turkey really is set to join the EU. Still a lot more Project Fear to come.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

Where I was and where I’m going…

by

A few of you have asked me where I’ve disappeared to. Rest assured, I am still very much around. Aside of giving over my blog to some very talented people for a bit, I have also been doing my own writing on the side. A short story that has grown into a novella and is still growing, another tale that is brewing in my head, and also, two further books of short stories that I am planning and hoping to execute at some point in the future.

It doesn’t help that despite my many fantastic ideas and plans, I still find that there are only 24 hours in a day with jobs to attend to, family to take care of, friends to socialise with and x hours of sleep to rest the weary body. Ho hum! Complaints, complaints…

Anyhow, my lovely guest blogger Johanna is still working on her Brexit series. She assures me that another article is in the pipeline. While she works on that, I will pop in with a few of my own posts too.

In the meantime, do keep reading and commenting. It’s always lovely to hear from you – whether in person, in my inbox or in the comments section here.

 

 

The trouble with Brexit (Part 2)

by

2. The ‘unique’ British media

When I first moved to London from The Netherlands in 1990, there were quite a few things that struck me as more than a little odd about the UK. Carpet in the bathroom? What was that all about? Separate hot and cold water taps? Weird…Why did some people leave a little bit of tea at the bottom of their cup? Who was Del Boy? And what exactly were Yorkshire puddings?

I also soon realised that, unlike The Netherlands, the UK didn’t really see itself as being part of Europe. If you were going to the continent from the UK, you were ‘going to Europe’ – as if you weren’t already in it! I reminded my English friends that London was not in Asia or South America, much to their amusement. It was also a long-standing British joke that Germans were Krauts, Italians were Wops and the French were Frogs. Even if there was no malice in these terms and it was meant to be funny, it still underpinned an underlying feeling of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. 

In spite of (or perhaps because of?) all of its eccentricities, I did fall head over heels in love with this beautiful country though. I loved the language, the “hello mate!” and “alright, darling?” greetings, the wit, the banter – and pretty much everything else! I even found myself an English boyfriend, and asked him what the British, in general, think about the Dutch. “We tolerate you”, my boyfriend answered with typically dry British humour.

His father read several British tabloid newspapers every day: the Sun (with its famous Page 3 Girl), the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. It was my first brush with something I found even more puzzling than anything I had seen before: anti-EU sentiment on a massive scale.

I couldn’t believe just how many hostile articles there were in these newspapers, and that pretty much all of them were blatant lies. Where I came from, nobody really talked about the EU – most people didn’t really have an opinion about it. But in London, they most certainly did – and it was all extremely negative! “Oh, it’s just a bit of a joke”, I was told, “these silly stories are not meant to be taken too seriously”.

Interestingly enough, I later found out that the origins of some of these so-called “Euromyths” – funny but completely fake news stories about the EU – could be traced back to none other than good old Boris Johnson. He had been hired by The Times during the 1980s (a job he got through family connections), was fired for making up two stories, and was hired by The Daily Telegraph almost immediately afterwards to become its Brussels correspondent between 1989 and 1994.

Boris loved ridiculing the EU for his own amusement, and invented plenty of stories about it. His Euromyths always followed the same pattern: they started off with a tiny element of truth, but soon turned into completely made-up conspiracy theories – ones that were so crazy that it was almost funny! There was supposed to be an EU plot to ban prawn cocktail flavoured crisps, Brussels bureaucrats wanted to standardise condom sizes, and one of his most memorable headlines was “Snails are fish, says EU”. Years later, Boris was quite happy to admit that he enjoyed telling complete porkies about the EU: “I was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall, and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England, as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive ­effect on the Tory party. It really gave me this, I suppose, rather weird sense of power.”

Over the next 30 years, EU bashing became a staple of most British tabloids, and Fake News became fashionable long before the expression was even invented. Here’s just a small selection of some newspaper headlines over the years:

  • “Bureaucrats declare Britain is ‘not an island'” (The Guardian)
  • “Eurocrats say Santa must be a woman” (The Sun)
  • “Scotch whisky rebranded ‘a dangerous chemical’ by EU” (Daily Telegraph)
  • “Domain names – .uk to be replaced by .eu” (Daily Mail)
  • “EU plot to rename Trafalgar Square and Waterloo Station” (Daily Express)
  • “EU to ban zipper trousers” (The Sun)
  • “2-for-1 bargains to be scrapped by EU” (Daily Mirror)
  • “New EU map makes Kent part of France” (Daily Telegraph)
  • “Corgis to be banned by EU” (Daily Mail)
  • “EU forcing cows to wear nappies” (Daily Mail)
  • “Brussels ban on pints of shandy” (The Times)
  • “Now EU crackpots demand gypsy MPs” (Daily Express)

This is just a tiny, tiny part of it – and these are just the headlines, so you can only imagine what the accompanying stories are like! Sadly, deliberate misinformation, half-truths and outright lies are still the order of the day in some newspapers. It is no wonder that the British press has been amongst the least trusted in Europe for years.

Hardly any British politicians challenged this negative portrayal of the EU in the media. Nobody said: “Hey, hang on a minute! How come we still have playgrounds, corgis and bendy bananas, if we’re constantly being told that they have been banned?” It probably suited them that the EU could be used as a convenient scapegoat for their own unpopular policies.

At first glance, all of this anti EU-ism may seem quite harmless, and even a bit of a laugh. However, it is probably fair to say that after many years and decades, the ‘drip, drip’ effect of this narrative did start to influence British opinions. And not just those of tabloid readers, but, as you can see above, also readers of more respectable newspapers like The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. A persuasive portrayal of an EU full of spoilsports getting rid of British playgrounds, double-decker buses and truckers’ fry-ups became a powerful ‘alternative fact’ in the UK: surely everybody knew what those patronising busybodies in Brussels were like? They were the enemies of common sense and the British way of life, so it was high time that the UK started fighting back against these oppressors. And this is exactly how some very influential Eurosceptic newspapers portray themselves: as noble representatives of the man on the street, fighting against those nasty elites in Westminster and Brussels.

You might therefore be surprised to learn that most of the UK media is owned by just a handful of extremely wealthy men with very strong ties to Westminster and the political establishment. One of them, Ukip donor Richard Desmond, sold the Daily Express not long ago – but that still leaves four billionaires with a huge amount of power and influence.

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun, The Times, the now-defunct News of the World (shut down after the phone hacking scandal), and also pro-Trump Fox News in the US. His company News Corporation has subsidiaries in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands and the Virgin Islands. From 1986, News Corporation’s annual tax bill averaged around 7% of its profits. Anthony Hilton, columnist for the Evening Standard wrote during the referendum campaign: “I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

Identical twins the Barclay brothers are the owners of the five-star Ritz hotel in London, as well as pro-Brexit publications The Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Currently number 17 on the Sunday Times Rich List, they have houses in both the Channel Islands and Monaco. In 2012, BBC’s Panorama reported that they had paid no corporation tax for the Ritz, and in 2017 the Barclay Brothers lost a £1.25 billion tax case against HMRC.

The Daily Mail is owned by the 4th Viscount Rothermere. His great-grandfather was a friend of Adolf Hitler, and supported the Nazis when he owned the newspaper in the 1930’s. He also wrote an interesting article entitled ‘Hurrah for the blackshirts’, supporting Oswald Mosley and the facist movement in Great Britain. The current Viscount Rothermere is said to be richer than the queen, he has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts.

So, not exactly ‘men in the street’, but billionaires with direct access to Downing Street, influencing opinions all over the country through their newspapers.

Regardless of their owners, does this mean that we should not have any critical Eurosceptic newspapers at all? Is the EU, in reality, just a perfect club of countries happily working together, holding hands and singing Kumbaya, that shouldn’t be questioned?

No, of course not.

There is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism towards the European Union. The Eurozone crisis, the migration crisis, the banking crisis, problems in Eastern Europe: it has plenty of problems – some outside of the EU’s control, some within it. But this is about fairness and balance. The world is not black or white – there are always fifty shades of grey in the middle. So let’s be sceptical of both sides. Let’s look at the pros and cons of the EU, without painting it as some kind of one-dimensional monster.

Why, for instance, do British newspapers never write about the good things the EU has achieved: clean beaches, no roaming charges, the protection of children that is enshrined into EU law? Why does nobody mention that the British film industry has received nearly £300 million in funding from the EU in the past 10 years? And why do you never hear about about all the money the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) have spent in poorer regions within the UK?

How about the £640 million it has paid to save old buildings in  Birmingham city centre? A £2 billion investment for Wales? £1 billion for South Yorkshire? €60 million to help repair flood damage in the UK, and a similar amount for Cornwall over the last ten years? Not a peep about any of this in the British media.

And while we’re at it: apart from some more balance, can we also have a discussion that is based on evidence-based facts please? I know that it it is not always easy to separate fact from fiction, but there are plenty of fact-checking websites out there these days. Take the famous fake Lisbon Treaty post doing the rounds on Facebook: “OMG!!! WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY THAT COMES INTO FORCE IN 2020??” Because it’s fake news, that’s why. And it is not just the Brexiteer side that makes things up, by the way. A recent claim that Nigel Farage was involved in the far-right National Front as a teenager is based on an old photograph, that is almost certainly not him.

Media bias, alternative facts, Russian bots, fake Twitter accounts: they are all a threat to democracy and our ability to separate truth from fiction.  Apparently, it will soon be possible  to make photo-realistic HD video, audio and document forgeries, even for amateurs, and some of these forgeries will be good enough to fool even some types of forensic analysis. Imagine what damage a Fake News story can do, when it’s accompanied by a very convincing Fake Video?

And whilst talking about media bias towards the EU, we haven’t even touched upon newspaper stories regarding some other groups of foreigners: immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. More about that next time.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

The trouble with Brexit – Johanna Brunt

by

It is the beginning of May, 2019 – nearly three years after the UK’s 2016 referendum, during which it decided to leave the European Union. Even at this late stage in the game, nobody knows if Brexit is going to be hard, soft or sunny side up – or whether it will even happen at all! The UK has just been given a Halloween extension, and some much-needed breathing space. The entire country is confused about backstops, trade deals and tariffs, and thoroughly fed up with the way everything has been handled in Westminster. It is high time for a progress report: how did we get here, and where do we go from now?

cherry-pie-2364372_960_720

  1. The Single Market and the Cherry Picking Myth

Brexit. A subject that has divided the country, parliament and political parties in the UK for three years now, and shows no signs of becoming any less polarising. With a difference of only 3.8%, the Leave campaign won the June 2016 referendum. Why did so many people think that Britain going its own way would be the best course of action?

There were two main reasons why people voted Leave in 2016. The first one was sovereignty. Many people were happy for the UK to cooperate with other European countries on trade and other issues, but they felt that over the years, the EU had grown too big for its boots. They were sick of being bossed around by unelected politicians in Brussels, and wanted to take back control.

The second biggest issue was immigration. A lot of British people didn’t like the European idea of unlimited Freedom of Movement. In their eyes, it meant that any Juan, Jan or Janusz could just enter the country, settle in, and undercut local workers or claim benefits.

So let’s have a look at this big European bully, that seems to feel entitled to impose its rules on the UK. What exactly is the European Union, what are the pros and cons of membership, and is leaving the EU the right thing to do for the UK?

The EU was originally set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in WWII. It is based on the idea that when countries trade together, and have a close working relationship, they are less likely to wage war against each other. The founding values of the European Union still form the core of European policy: freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Today, the EU is incredibly big and powerful – probably a lot bigger, and a lot more powerful than most people in the UK realise! It accounts for almost a quarter of the world’s GDP (23%), meaning that it is also very rich, compared to most of the rest of the world. In fact, out of 193 countries in the United Nations, only 35 are considered ‘advanced economies’ according to the IMF – and out of these 35 countries, 27 are inside the EU.

So how did the EU become so big, powerful and rich? The answer lies in just three little words: The Single Market. This is when things get pretty boring – but please bear with me, as it is absolutely central to the whole Brexit debate!

The Single Market is by far the biggest, and most advanced single trading area on the planet. It is an ongoing process of harmonisation and standardisation, designed to make it as easy as possible for people, goods, services and money to move around those countries that are a part of it: the 28 members of the EU, plus 4 non-EU countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein (EEA countries), and Switzerland. It does not only cover free trade, meaning that the countries within the Single Market don’t charge each other tariffs (import taxes). It also covers something much more advanced than that, and something that is quite unique: frictionless trade.

Frictionless trade means that countries within the Single Market have decided to not only eliminate tariffs and customs barriers between themselves. They have also made it as easy as possible to trade and allow free access to each other’s markets, by having the same standards and regulations for goods and services. That means the same safety regulations, environmentally friendly packaging, food labelling, consumer guarantees etc, to create a fair and level playing field between countries. Kind of as if the Single Market was a single country, really! This way, manufacturers don’t have to set up different production lines, to make different goods for different countries. Essentially, it gets rid of trade barriers and internal borders, making it easier for companies to operate internationally, and enlarge their markets.

Imagine, for instance, that you are a British manufacturer of hairdryers. If you want to sell those hairdryers to other countries, you would normally have to deal with different regulations that other countries have, because of their different legal systems. Spain may have certain laws regarding particular hairdryer components, or they may have completely different safety standards to the ones that you have in your country. And Austria, Malta and Sweden may also have slightly different rules and regulations. That would make cross-border trade much harder for you – those countries wouldn’t allow you to sell your hairdryers in their countries, because you don’t comply with their standards. Setting up different production lines for different countries you want to sell to would increase costs for you, leading to higher prices for your products, and reduced competitiveness. You would probably just end up staying in your own country, and lose out on the opportunity to become a big company that trades internationally.

The Single Market has removed those regulatory barriers by allowing frictionless trade between Single Market countries, both in goods and in services. Incidentally, services are things like banking, insurance and telecommunications which make up about 80% of the economy, so it’s quite important to the UK (fishing is less than 0.5%, by the way..). This way, it is now as easy for you to sell your hairdryers from London to Lisbon, as it is to sell them from London to Leeds.

You may ask yourself: “That’s all very nice, but that’s all about trade and stuff. How does that affect me?” Well, having a healthy economy means high employment (jobs), more people spending their well-earned money and keeping the economy going, and more money for the government’s coffers. Companies have to pay corporation taxes, its workers pay National Insurance Contributions and income taxes, and all of that money goes into HMRC. With that pot of money, governments can then pay for schools, hospitals, housing, the police and other public services. It’s a win-win situation, because your country has high employment and more money to spend. Membership of the EU and the Single Market has undoubtedly been of great benefit for the UK, which used to be known as the ‘sick man of Europe’ in the 1960’s. In fact, it has been so successful that it has made the UK the fifth biggest economy in the entire world (although it dropped to sixth soon after the 2016 referendum).

In order to prevent the member states from engaging in unfair competition, and to keep a level playing field, the Single Market also involves countries having certain baseline standards regarding workers’ rights, health and safety regulations, consumer protections, environmental rules, food and animal welfare standards etc. A great number of these kinds of regulations and laws have been written by the UK, which is seen as one of the ‘Big Three’: the three largest and most important countries within the EU (along with Germany and France).

The famous European CE mark, for example, originated from the old British Kitemark. If you see it on a toy that you bought for your children, you can be confident that it is not going to have any tiny components that your baby may choke on, or that he or she is not going to get ill because the toy is covered in toxic paint. All countries within the Single Market have agreed that they will not compete with each other by trying to lower basic standards that exist to protect workers, consumers and the environment, and that they certainly won’t try to get rid of them altogether.

Some of these regulatory rules and standards apply to more than just the 28 EU countries plus those 4 non-EU countries. The Single Market has essentially turned the EU into a huge global powerhouse – one that negotiates its own trade deals with other countries and trading blocs, on behalf of its member states. As an EU member, the UK is part of about 40 trade agreements that the EU has with about 70 other countries, which have taken decades to negotiate. And because it is so big and powerful, the EU has a lot of clout. For instance, if you now buy a toy from China it will have to have a CE mark on it, because the EU has forced China to comply with European safety standards – thus protecting European consumers.

Having these basic common standards is also good news for ordinary citizens, as many EU laws protect them from being exploited by unscrupulous employers. For instance, it means that you can’t be forced to work more than 48 hours a week – you can if you want to, but your employer can’t sack you if you don’t. Things like paid holidays, a ban on age discrimination, LGBT rights, paid maternity leave etc are also enshrined in EU law. It is therefore no coincidence that pretty much all UK unions, as well as the vast majority of economists, campaigned against Brexit during the 2016 referendum campaign.

As you can imagine, the EU has been very keen to protect the integrity of the Single Market during the Brexit negotiations. This consist of four pillars, also known as the ‘four freedoms’:

  1. Freedom of goods
  2. Freedom of services
  3. Freedom of capital (money)
  4. Freedom of people (labour)

EU negotiators set out their strategy from the beginning, and they have been very clear all along: “Anything can be discussed, but we can’t separate these four freedoms, that the success of our Single Market is based on.”

Unfortunately though, the UK spent the next few years trying to cherry-pick bits out of the Single Market cake. Take the Chequers proposal: “We’ll have that freedom of goods part, thank you very much – but you can keep the freedom of movement part that we don’t want.” When the EU explained that you’re either in the Single Market or you’re out of it, and you can’t have it both ways, the UK press were outraged: how dare the EU humiliate our prime minister by refusing our cherry-picking proposals? Surely they should give us what we want?

This rather one-sided British point of view shows a really basic misunderstanding about the importance of the Single Market to the EU, and its role in the prosperity of all EU countries. The EU sticking to its guns is not about it being vindictive, or about punishing the UK. It is about the EU being strong and stable. Its main aim is, of course, to protect the interests of its 27 remaining member states, not that of 1 soon-to-be ex-member. After all, there is not a single organisation in the world that will give better terms to non-members than to members. So why would it be reasonable to expect the EU to change a winning formula, that has taken decades to develop?

When you look back at old footage of pro-Brexit politicians being interviewed before the referendum, you notice how many of them expected the EU to cave in to the UK’s demands. They talk about the UK wanting complete and full access to the Single Market after Brexit, without it having to adhere to the rules on its four freedoms – particularly the freedom of movement part. Or they talk about keeping access to ‘a’ Single Market, rather than ‘the’ Single Market (as if there are two).

It took a little while before it dawned on these Brexiteers that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it. That that unspecified, magical ‘deal’ that they had promised their voters was, in fact, unavailable – and that it had never existed in the first place. It is as if they had decided to cancel their Netflix subscription, but were then completely taken by surprise when they switched on the tv on a Saturday night, and couldn’t watch any movies anymore. And what’s more: they had a go at a rather baffled Netflix afterwards – an organisation that had always been quite clear about its rules.

So where does this odd mix of pie-in-the-sky thinking (“the German car industry will give in to our demands because we are too important to them; we hold all the cards”), victim mentality (“the bullies in the EU want to punish us”) and anti-EU hostility (“it is an elite conspiracy against the public”) come from? And how did we get to a situation where so many British people genuinely believe that the EU is evil, vindictive, and out to get them? Look no further than the British media, and several decades of Project Fear. More of that coming up next week, in part 2.

IMG_0848

Johanna Brunt was born and raised in The Netherlands. She has spent half her life there on the continent, and half her life in the UK. After studying English and European Studies at the University of Amsterdam, she moved to London where she started working for an international airline. She is married to a Brit, and they have three children together.

My Cup Runneth Over…

by

I started my Guest Blog month in the hope that at least 50% of the people I had contacted for articles (people whose thoughts, lives and words I admired) would get back to me with some material. In actual fact, nearly 80% did! Yes I did pester and harangue them quite a bit (SORRY!) but my goodness, the response! I am humbled, grateful and overwhelmed beyond description.

My month overran, once again, like last time. But I didn’t mind and nor did my readers. It’s refreshing to come to a blog and read something new and unexpected. And boy, were the articles different and the topics varied!

André chronicled his unusual life and path in My unlikely journey to fatherhood. It was honest, heartfelt and emotionally uplifting. The response to his article was phenomenal. People reached out to tell him (and me) how much they admired him for his choices. His love for his children and their mothers shone like a beacon, and I hope it allowed other seemingly unlikely candidates to believe that they too can be mothers and fathers. After all, families come in all shapes and guises. It is love that holds them together.

The ghost in the office was Shantanu’s retelling of a mysterious series of events that occurred in one of his early offices. Does the supernatural exist? For a practical and rational person like Shantanu, nothing can explain away the incident he mentions. Spooky and eerie, sometimes there are things that are beyond the realm of our understanding, and maybe it’s best to leave them as is. What did you make of it?

Diya had a cushy existence till she decided to take the plunge and start teaching a group of underprivileged children in My rendezvous with God’s angels. What she found there was more rewarding than she could have ever expected. Their innocence, their eagerness to learn, their love for their teacher transformed her life. She learned to let go of the petty annoyances that plagued her, and immerse herself in giving back. To this day, it enriches her life in ways big and small.

Making mosaics became more than a hobby for Jyoti. It was an unconventional choice of craft and she encountered more than her fair share of problems, from the paucity of tools to the reluctance of other practitioners to share their skills. As a result, she started her own blog with the aim of helping other beginners and amateurs to source materials, tools and provide guidance in the process as well. Not only does she create the most beautiful mosaics, but also believes in the adage – ‘Gaining knowledge, is the first step to wisdom. Sharing it, is the first step to humanity.’ In Why do I make mosaics? Jyoti’s passion, humanity and humility shine through. She is an incredibly inspirational lady.

The Call of a Siren was an article sent to me by someone who wished to remain anonymous. If you’ve read the article, you will know why. The beauty of it is that this man has turned his life around from that lapse of judgement he details, and today he is an incredibly successful entrepreneur. He is also an avid reader and dabbles in the occasional bit of writing. It was my exhorting him to put pen to paper that created this thrilling recounting of an incident from his 20’s. I’m sure you’d agree that it reads like an episode from an exciting television series. My own heart was thumping as I read it for the first time! My friend, if you’re reading this, write more. You do have a gift.

HeartonWheels is Jeanne’s raison d’etre. She spends half her life in these refugee camps in Greece helping children overcome the trauma of escaping from war torn countries and being separated from their families. In extremely difficult conditions, she tries to fill their lives with laughter and with joy. This is not just a part time job for her, it is a calling. She is invested physically, mentally and emotionally in the well being of her charges. Her dream is to provide free education to all children in such conditions and through her mobile bus, which she is raising funds for, she hopes to realise this dream. Do have a read and contribute to her justgiving page if you can.

To say that Mohana has had an interesting life would be an understatement. A straight A student, who, for many years let her academic qualifications dictate the course of her life, then suddenly, on what seemed like a whim, let her art and talent take her on an entirely different journey. Yet, in her article, Life’s Nudges to Eke an Untrodden Path, Mohana explains how the seeds of this journey had been planted many years ago. The daughter of a renowned dancer, Mohana herself was an exceptionally talented danseuse. But it took many years, and many tiny hints from the Universe for her to realise where her true path lay. Unapologetically spiritual, she incorporates elements of her faith in her dance. There is an unalloyed joy that she transmits to her students through her teaching, that elevates her dance from the ordinary to the extraordinary.

Bharat is a writer I admire immensely. His grasp on the English language is breathtaking. He can bend, twist, transmogrify and transmute words into astonishing combinations of sentences, transporting the reader into worlds where these words dance and twirl around one like whirling dervishes. A man whose imagination is so fertile, so fecund that he can trot out poem after poem without breaking a sweat. Yet, a self confessed procrastinator, it took me close to a year to get him to write about his Vipassana experience. For a man of words, how strange it must have been to have none for ten days. A retreat that is a true test of one’s mettle, but also a retreat that helps one to delve deeper into the self. Bharat’s take on it is part humorous, but there is an underlying awe and a deep love and respect for humanity that comes through. A tale of two beards is more than just about beards, it is about man’s search for meaning and silence in a world that grows louder and more chaotic each day.

Finally, the poignant and heart wrenching The Bus Stop was Joan’s tribute to her mother who suffered from Alzheimers for several years before succumbing to it. Disease of any kind strips the body of its well being and dignity, but Alzheimers strips the mind of everything. To not know oneself, one’s own life forgotten, one’s family becoming strangers, must be a horribly scary and isolating experience. Joan’s poem gives words to the wordless. It is an insight into a lost and wandering mind, trying to find its bearings, trying to grasp fruitlessly at memories that are slipping away. ‘Am I a lost article?’ is what her mother asked her once. Maybe we all are, lost in one way or another. But to be lost to oneself… what could be worse than that?

My Guest Blog month hasn’t quite ended. A colleague, the extremely intelligent, erudite, politically astute, deep thinking Joke Brunt is working on a series of articles on Brexit for me. The month of May will be devoted to her take on what Brexit stands for, and what the ramifications will be, to those of us on both sides of the fence. Do keep reading, keep commenting and stay engaged!

A very BIG thank you to all of my contributors once again.