Opinion: Freedom* Of* Movement* – The Immigration Proposals We Dodged a Bullet On

The People’s Movement MP DF44 writes for The Guardian.

For some, looking at the proposed rules on immigration will be more than a little bit reminiscent of the European Union.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Guardian.

They say that the EU flag isn’t made up of stars, but instead of asterisks, representing all the sub-clauses and exceptions that define it’s bizarre and wonderful structure. Well, the europhilia of the Liberal Democrats clearly played a role in the creation of an Immigration Proposal Draft for the entire proposal could be built upon a bed of asterisks. Thankfully, for the asterisk economy, this is not the immigration proposal we are likely to see, as the Sunrise+ Coalition prepares to have it’s Queen’s Speech read tomorrow morning.



So, under the so-called “Executive” Government, what would our immigration system likely have looked like? As Sunrise+ already looks less stable than a Jenga tower, it would be foolhardy to imagine that by the next General Election we would certainly have the current Government, and coalition agreements are notoriously recyclable…



Seek reciprocal free movements with many countries to foster a free Labour market based on our principles of market competition while ensuring that British workers are not disadvantaged.



This first point represents a perhaps surprising commitment to an immigration system not dissimilar to that of the EU’s freedom of movement, where the agreements are reciprocal, but do not extend to all countries, amounting to several countries de-facto sharing the same border – perhaps easier for the electorate than truly open borders. Even then I’m not entirely sure how Conservative voters would have responded to that – I have to imagine the unexplained line about not disadvantaging British workers was expected to be a sufficient fig leaf on that front? Arguments from the Telegraph might perhaps have shown such an idea to be flawed right from the outset, and the Conservative Party might benefit from not needing to actually implement such proposals…



A key point of interest here is how this would have worked in the long term when it came to open borders agreements with multiple countries. Whilst the first country would have been relatively easy to agree terms with, the second would have almost inevitably require another agreement with the first – it is highly unlikely that you could manage an agreement where there would be free movement with some citizens but not others, as shown by the consistency of the European Union on that concept being flawed. The third country added would then need agreements the second and the first, and so on.



Dealing with such complexities would have taken time, especially if there was a wish to maintain free movement with Ireland – and as such the rest of the EU. Because that means any additional agreements would inevitably require the agreement of the EU27, that would provide 27 nations where agreements would need to be made on freedom of movement before adding yet another to the free movement block. Of course, that problem could have been resolved by ignoring Ireland, but the problems that would present are equally numerous. Still, the resolution to this problem for now is something we must be content to imagine, rather than truly see…



Firstly seek arrangements with: Countries of a similar level of development and income than ourselves as defined by 3/4ths of the UK’s Gross National Income per capita. This includes CANZUK and most rich EU nations



In a shocking commitment to equality, given that all parties involved seem to believe in free trade being an excellent way to boost development, Free Movement would have been first aimed at those countries which are already wealthy.



Indeed, the cutoff just below $31,000 GNI Per Capita means that the coalition would only be seeking arrangements with a small group of EU countries, CANZUK, the USA, and a handful of smaller countries such as Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE. Whilst free movement to these countries would represent a step in the right direction, it is notable just how high the limit is set – the global leader in technology of South Korea, where such an agreement would likely be a net boon for a growing sector, is notably just short of the GNI Per Capita Target. When asked if this was a flexible target, the eelsemaj responded as such;



Well we prioritise of course reaching deals that do fall in the 3/4 GNI bracket, but this does not limit us only to pursuing deals with those nations

One area which would continue to be a concern is the target for free movement between rich EU nations. The only practical way to establish this, as previously discussed, would have been complete freedom of movement with the European Union, even if eelsemaj at a press conference dismissed this reality. Whilst I doubt this would have managed to please Tory backbenchers, I imagine this would have been very effective for keeping the liberal side of the Government pleased.



Require extradition treaties before signing the free movement deals



Whilst a fairly reasonable policy, this raised concerns when it comes to a handful of the few countries the coalition would likely be contemplating any free trade agreements with, given the previously outlined requirements of ¾ GNI per capita. This means a coalition that would have been considering extradition treaties with Qatar, where stoning is legal, and Brunei, where the act of being LGBTQIA+ is enough to warrant the death penalty.



Asked on the case of the latter, eelsemaj responded;



A Conservative-Clib-LD Government would carefully consider the consequences of extradition, and in individual cases where it is deemed ill advised to extradite, because of human rights, we would pursue other avenues.



Whilst this is a rational response, and indicates a basic awareness of the problems faced in Brunei for the LGBTQIA+ community there, this would have presented a problem in the negotiation of an extradition treaty, especially in the context of a requirement before free movement.



Ensure that countries we have deals with have similar levels of workers rights and wage laws to ensure a level playing field (equivalence?). Also similar human rights protection.



Whilst not entirely clear, I believe this made up part of the attempt to “ensure British workers are not disadvantaged.” As becomes a running theme, this is clear as mud, however it is likely that this would have certainly remove several countries from being potential free movement partners, such as the aforementioned Brunei, Qatar… and also the United States, until they learn to stop putting people in cages and learn of the existence of the paid holiday.



Indeed, one notable point here is that workers rights are now being used as a political weapon. On its own that’s kind of scary, but more relevantly is that this line of speech indicates that we can expect free movement to be used more aggressively as an argument against improving worker’s rights, on the evident basis that it would make the playing field uneven. Accurate or not, it is nice to know the sort of debate line we can expect looking towards the immediate future, especially with the likes of TUFBRA likely up for debate this term again.



For now, I think we’re due for our first asterisk on the coalition’s policy, because it’s only going to get worse from here!



Policy: Freedom of Movement*

* For people from rich countries



Ensure a break mechanism is present to issue targeted reduction.



And right away we have another! Freedom of Movement, but with the ability of the Government to say “that’s enough” is perhaps the first step to sounding like FoMINO. No notice is given as to who would have the power to engage the breaks, to disengage them, and in which direction they go. And, once again, nothing was agreed as to how this would interact with having more than one country in an open borders block, presumably because that is incredibly and insanely complicated. Nor is any mention given to how difficult this would make planning for whose who wish to emigrate to the UK, bringing their skills, culture, and labour with them, not knowing if they can plan to emigrate in several months time.



Let’s update the policy, then!



Policy: Freedom of Movement* **

* For people from rich countries ; ** If we feel like it



Ideally focus on free movement of workers instead of absolute free movement, at the very least exclude the unemployed (unless a civil partner or child)



Ah, now this is where the contradictions start piling in! This might read like the Tories suddenly pandering to their policy, but a policy u-turn this violent part-way through the same document is very much indicative of one thing: This policy was actually written by a Liberal Democrat! Or, at the very least, inspired by one.



This policy is fairly antithetical to freedom of movement – essentially boiling down to “if a company wants to uproot you to move here, then we’ll allow that – but nothing else!”. Even when ideas presented are unworkable, it is poor practice to have self-contradictory policy documents unless you wish your government to implode.



In the general context this policy is a boring, usually-moderately-discriminatory one that has been criticised to death enough times… and also still adopted by most parties as general populist fare. However, in the context of an immigration promise of freedom of movement, this policy is absolutely bonkers – the equivalent of promising to lower taxes, with a policy document showing raised taxes. Or perhaps a promise to support democracy, with policy showing an absolute ignorance of several recent referendums in our overseas territories…



Anyway, another quick update on this policy!



Policy: Freedom of Movement* ** ***

* For people from rich countries ; ** If we feel like it ; ***If you’re willing to be employed and stay employed even in terrible conditions



We should impose a limit otherwise we’ll end up with the system being abused given you can have civil partnerships with an unlimited quantity of people



This is both no fun… and also, now that it’s been mentioned, excellent praxis for local groups working with immigrants! Antifa thanks you, folks!



Ensure that people must pay into the system before receiving free healthcare or welfare. Could be done by requiring naturalisation for welfare or NHS access (3 years under current proposals).



The recent trend of “you don’t get to use the NHS” must have Bevan spinning in his grave. Gone, apparently, is the pride in our nation’s healthcare system, replaced with more money-grubbing tactics that will, inevitably, backfire.



The logic here is not difficult. If you stop people using the NHS, they will be pushed away from seeing a doctor. Combine that with requirements for immigrants to be employed, and you get a system that encourages ill people to work through illness. Hey presto, as if by magic, you’ve managed to turn what would be a singular illness, into a local outbreak that’s far more devastating to the national purse than letting immigrants use the NHS ever could be.



Still, as the insanity mounds, so does our pile of asterisks!



Policy: Freedom of Movement* ** *** ****

* For people from rich countries ; ** If we feel like it ; ***If you’re willing to be employed and stay employed even in terrible conditions ; **** And you’re able to avoid illness for three years



Deportation of Foreign Criminals to be an option based on severity of offence, with consideration given to likelihood of successful punishment in their home country.



A little bit of populist bollocks throw into an immigration policy document always makes the world keep spinning! Regardless of your opinion on “people not born here should have harsher sentences” and the general role of the legal system in restorative justice, this really doesn’t belong in your immigration policy. Come on now…



UK will operate in full compliance with EFTA rules on internal immigration between EFTA states.



This is actually sane policy, and perhaps something that should be a bit further up the policy page – even if it is completely in contradiction to the previously derided idea of only allowing workers freedom of movement. However, it also allows a spotlight to shine on how optimistic this document might be, with regards to extradition.



An interesting trivia question, related to this point is as follows: How long have Iceland and Norway been trying to sort out an extradition treaty with the EU? 6 Months? A year? Try since 2001. The idea that any government would be able to handle our exit from the EU, our ascendence into EFTA, and handle the extradition treaty side of matters is ludicrously optimistic at best. We could instead opt towards establishing 27 bilateral agreements with the member states on the matter of extradition instead, however this goes beyond stretching belief and outright suspends it. And I can’t imagine the alternative – being bound to the Court of Justice of the European Union on extradition issues as, as is the case in Iceland and Norway – is exactly going to be thrilling to Conservative grassroots. Once again, another issue for a hypothetical Government that will not be forming… yet!



The current visa system for skilled job allocation (based on job type) to be replaced with a skilled individuals system, where the qualifications or past earnings of the applicant are to be used as a basis for “highly skilled” worker status. This will include a provision requiring job seekers to return home if no work is found after six months, unless they or an associate will financially support them. There is to be no numerical caps on visas.



Perhaps the most appropriate change, recognising that the UK has a mass deluge of people overqualified for their positions as is!

Summary

This document is as vague as it looks, and more scattershot than the Green Party’s electoral strategy. As internal conflict already threatens the stability of the Sunrise+ coalition government, it is worth looking towards what else is on the table… because when you do that, you might get the slight feeling that it’ll be worth it to keep the tower from collapsing. And for those in opposition… well, perhaps now would be the time to start work on a more coherent policy when it comes to immigration.



Indeed, if you wished to use the original document as a base, I think this is how I would phrase the entire thing, in one sentence;



“We are completely disjointed on immigration, but we all sort of like CANZAC.”



I think you could save a solid hour dodging asterisks like that!*

* Time spent reading this article for guidance not included.

Written by DF44 for The Guardian.