The anti-EU, anti-immigration United Kingdom Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage, looks to be the big winner in the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. Some optimistic estimates suggest that it may beat the Conservative and Labour heavyweights, mustering as much as a third of the votes. This is despite allegations of racist views held by UKIP candidates, fuelled by what should have been career-destroying comments had they come from politicians representing more established parties.

UKIP’s ability to endure scandal is symptomatic of a populist narrative replacing fact-based discourse in the debate on immigration; all the while the economic consequences of migration, as well as individual opinions of it, have not featured heavily in the discussion. A better-rounded look at migration from Eastern Europe (disclosure: the author is a Polish immigrant living in the UK) is therefore needed.

Headlines that sell papers

At the heart of UKIP’s success lies the ability of its undoubtedly charismatic leader to control the tone of the conversation on immigration. This is something he would not have been able to do had the foundations not been laid by the British media over the past decade.

Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP

The language used in the discussion of EU immigration and in particular that from the A8 (the countries that joined the EU in 2004) has been overwhelmingly focused on the scale (descriptors such as “thousands” and “millions”) and origin (Eastern European and Polish in particular) and prosperity (“jobs”, “benefits” and “economic” descriptors) of migrants. Polish migration has been dealt with more than that of other V4 nations, primarily because of the numbers involved. Over half-a-million Poles live in the UK, compared with 52,000 Hungarians, around 40,000 Czechs, and 8,000 Slovaks.

Ultimately, the British media, in particular the newspapers, have failed to present a fair image of A8 immigrants. Rather than attempting to ferment some particular dislike for immigrants from those countries, this is a case of publishing stories that will sell. Awareness of the personal realities of migration, the economic benefits of free movement of labour and what life is actually like in the A8 countries suffers because of this. It is still not uncommon to hear Poland referred to as “a third world country” in private conversation, for instance.

The effects on Britons’ perceptions of migration are profound. Ipsos-MORI, a British market research company, has found that the greatest disparity between the views of those who read newspapers and those who do not occurs in the matter of immigration and race relations. Nigel Farage and UKIP have taken the narrative already present in the media and adjusted it fit their political agendas: the link between the dislike of migration and dislike of the EU.

The debate on immigration is not a new thing

Polling data points to approximately 60% of the British public being against mass migration to the UK. Given the rhetoric involving Poles and Romanians, it is easy to think that the attitudes towards immigration are the result of the current movement of Eastern Europeans into the UK. While the quantity of migrants has given the topic new relevance, it is rather a continuation of an underlying mentality that dates back to the end of the British Empire.

The influx of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi migrants from the 1960s attracted much of the same criticisms as that of the EU’s Eastern members. Surveys conducted by the British Election Study between 1964 and 1979 show that over 80% of Britons considered the numbers of immigrants in the UK to be too high. While the drop from over 80% to around 60% can be attributed to changes in the methodology of the surveys, according to The Migration Observatory, the fact remains that opposition to immigration is a long-standing issue within British politics and not one that stems from the number of A8 nationals living in Britain, the economic crisis, or the country’s membership of the EU for that matter.

A populist movement divorced from the populace

For the most part, UKIP’s rhetoric exploits the disparity between group and individual outlooks on the core issues of multiculturalism and mass migration.

As a group, Britons believe immigration to be a serious problem. When the data is taken apart, however, it shows that individuals have a much more positive attitude towards migration. There is an overwhelming feeling that while mass migration has an impact on British communities, it is never their communities, but those of others. Overall, only 18% of people see mass immigration as a local problem, yet 76% consider it a national priority. Neither do people see it to be the cause of racial tension, something that Nigel Farage recently claimed. For this reason, populist rhetoric is focused on the “grand idea” of immigration, not the personal practicalities of it, which do not affect the average listener.

Furthermore, areas that have low number of A8 migrants are the ones where anti-immigration ideologies have the strongest presence, while those with high numbers of foreigners show a much greater tolerance. The area of London, with the highest proportion of immigrants in the UK, is also where anti-immigration rhetoric has gained the least ground, not just among minority voters, but white British-born ones as well.

Thus, the spectre of migration is much worse that the reality. Contact with migrants erases the caricatures that UKIP peddles and replaces them with real people, who for the most part are hard-working and honest, and with whom “native Britons” in fact have a lot of common ground. Only the most prejudiced can cling on to the association between Romanians and human-traffickers in these conditions.

Never let facts ruin a good argument

It is an old joke that “96% of statistics are made up.” The debate on immigration lacks a few things; it has big egos, grand pronouncements, and enough drama to fill a couple plays, but it consistently avoids fact. In this, the failing lies with what Farage refers to as “the Establishment”. Neither the Tories nor Labour have successfully managed to challenge UKIP’s assertions, preferring to play the populist game instead. This has not only failed to halt UKIP’s rise, it seems to have contributed to it, acting as an admission of failure and vindicating the very reactionary policies that it criticizes. Perhaps the correct way to challenge UKIP is to present the underlying fallacy of its argument and thus change people’s perceptions of migration.

Credible sources, including notes by the House of Commons Library, show that immigration has an undeniably positive impact on the British economy, with little change to wages, no evidence of contributing to unemployment, and a disproportionally low impact on the welfare state compared to economic activity. Long-term immigration is even more profitable to the UK, as it increases birth-rates and boosts the working population relative to dependents, bolstering the very benefits system that some argue migrants abuse. Immigrants are typically young, educated, and have a great desire to work. A conservative estimate puts A8 immigrants contributing 0.25% of the GDP. This may not be an overwhelming figure, but it is far from the “benefit tourism” image commonly associated with migrants

Of course, Farage’s supporters would argue that a strict immigration policy would allow Britain to retain these benefits through careful vetting of migrants, and selection according to skills and the needs of the British economy. That is an utterly naive perspective. Britain’s success in drawing in migrants (and economically it is a success) relies on the welcoming tolerance of British society, on its openness, and promise of opportunities within a meritocratic system. Introducing limits on immigration, particularly under the guiding principles of a fundamentally xenophobic party such as UKIP, would critically undermine that.

In the years ahead Britain will face a number of choices that will be of paramount importance to its own citizens, those of the V4+2 countries living within the UK, and the EU as a whole. Britain needs a debate on immigration, and it needs a debate on EU membership – establishing a consensus within society is an important role of government. However, before a fair debate can truly take place, the narratives that have for many years been constructed around these issues need to be dismantled. Europeans need not be passive during this process. Migrants from the V4, now also Bulgaria and Romania, are the best ambassadors for the cause of free movement of labour within the EU, challenging the preconceptions that are fundamental to UKIP’s popularity. If Britain can truly embrace multiculturalism and migration, the country will become better for it, both economically and culturally.

Bartosz Raubo studied Ancient History and Archaeology at the University of Liverpool and Classical Archaeology at St. Cross College, Oxford. He is currently an intern at Populus in London and runs the blog Roamology.