Brexit was a victory for nativism over rationality

Economic argument for immigration is especially stronger in ageing societies that characterise Europe.


2016/07/03 Issue: 63 Page: 7


The Arab Weekly
Mark Habeeb



Britain’s vote to leave the European Union involved many issues but, by British Prime Minister David Cameron’s own post-mortem reckoning, the “driving force” was immigration. More precisely, the anti-immi­grant sentiment that has been surging in the United Kingdom for several years.

Unlike in continental Europe, the main target of anti-immigrant passion in Britain traditionally has been Eastern Europeans, not Arabs and Africans. Because of the European Union’s open-border policy, when Eastern Europe countries joined the bloc in 2004, their citizens gained the right to move to and work in the United Kingdom, leading to grumbling about the “Polish plumbers” taking away British jobs.

However, the images of migrant camps in Calais just across the English Channel and the knowledge that the thousands of Arabs and Africans who might be granted asylum in any other EU country could end up on English high streets added to the British voters’ angst.

The most common and publicly expressed arguments against immigration are economic: Immigrants will take jobs, work for less money, spend less money and provide inferior quality of work. Study after study, however, shows that the economic argument against immigration does not hold water.

In the case of Brexit, in particular, the economic loss that comes from withdrawing from the world’s single largest economy far outweighs any short-term economic costs associated with immigration. Pleading economics to support Brexit is, frankly, Bullxit.

Philippe Legrain, professor at the London School of Economics and former economic adviser to the president of the European Commission, conducted a comprehensive economic analysis for the Tent Foundation. The ensuing report, released in May, concluded: “Investing one euro in welcoming refugees can yield nearly two euros in economic benefits within five years… policymakers and practitioners should stop considering refugees as a ‘burden’ to be shared but rather as an opportunity to be welcomed.”

The economic argument for immigration is especially stronger in the ageing societies that characterise Europe.

“Ageing societies with a shrinking native working age population, such as Germany’s, benefit from the arrival of younger refugees whose skills complement those of older, more experienced workers,” Legrain wrote. “Refugees can also help care and pay for the swelling ranks of pensioners.”

Moreover, immigrants normally engage in what Legrain terms “4-d work” — dirty, dangerous, difficult and dull — that even unemployed Europeans do not want to do.

So, if the anti-immigrant sentiment is economically groundless, why is it so powerful — and why did it just lead British voters to make a decision that many “Leave” supporters are ruing?

Nigel Farage, leader of the nativist UK Independence Party, answered the question. Before the referendum, Farage told the Guardian that immigration causes “change in our communities that has left many people in our towns and cities frankly finding it difficult to recognise the place being the same as it was ten to 15 years ago.”

When told of the economic benefits of immigration, Farage responded, “There is more to this country and the make-up of communities and our way of life frankly than just GDP (gross domestic product) figures.”

Farage speaks for millions of people across Europe. As the forces of globalisation have spread relentlessly — intertwining economies, shortening geographic distances, removing barriers to communication, allowing regional conflicts to metastasise worldwide — there is a growing counter-reaction, which, for lack of a better term, can be called “localisation.” Inherent in localisation is a sense of “us” and “them,” of those who belong here and those who do not.

Localisers exaggerate the dangers: Current projections are that by 2030 Europe’s population will be 8% Muslim, which means it will be 92% non-Muslim. There is no invasion coming. (To be fair, advocates of globalisation also exaggerate the benefits of a phenomenon that, in fact, has produced both great wealth and great inequality.)

The US presidential election is in many ways a battle between globalisers and localisers but the outcome will most likely be different. For one, the United States was built on immigration. Immigrants face initial hostility but assimilation happens remarkably fast in the United States. Moreover, American voters reflect a far broader hue than British voters: 87% of UK voters are white, while 69% of the US electorate is white (down from 71% four years ago).

Two major demographic fault lines characterise the world today: The Mediterranean and the Rio Grande (the British have just voted to add the English Channel to that list). On each fault line, the northern side is a magnet for distressed people on the southern side. This will not change in the foreseeable future. How the respective northern sides deal with the underlying issues, such as war and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa region, as well as with popular sentiments will dominate the political agendas in Europe and the United States for some time to come.


Mark Habeeb is East-West editor of The Arab Weekly and adjunct professor of Global Politics and Security at Georgetown University in Washington.


As Printed
MENA Now
Editors' Picks

The Arab Weekly Newspaper reaches Western & Arabic audience that are influential as well as being affluent.

From Europe to the Middle East,and North America, The Arab Weekly talks to opinion formers and influential figures, providing insight and comment on national, international and regional news through the focus of Arabic countries and community.

Published by Al Arab Publishing House

Publisher and Group Executive Editor: Haitham El-Zobaidi, PhD

Editor-in-Chief: Oussama Romdhani

Managing Editor: Iman Zayat

Deputy Managing Editor and Online Editor: Mamoon Alabbasi

Senior Editor: John Hendel

Chief Copy Editor: Richard Pretorius

Copy Editor: Stephen Quillen

Analysis Section Editor: Ed Blanche

East/West Section Editor: Mark Habeeb

Gulf Section Editor: Mohammed Alkhereiji

Society and Travel Sections Editor: Samar Kadi

Syria and Lebanon Sections Editor: Simon Speakman Cordall

Contributing Editor: Rashmee Roshan Lall

Senior Correspondents: Mahmud el-Shafey (London) & Lamine Ghanmi (Tunis)

Regular Columnists

Claude Salhani

Yavuz Baydar

Correspondents

Saad Guerraoui (Casablanca)

Dunia El-Zobaidi (London)

Roua Khlifi (Tunis)

Thomas Seibert (Washington)

Chief Designer: Marwen Hmedi

Designers

Ibrahim Ben Bechir

Hanen Jebali

Published by Al Arab Publishing House

Contact editor at:editor@thearabweekly.com

Subscription & Advertising: Ads@alarab.co.uk

Tel 020 3667 7249

Mohamed Al Mufti

Marketing & Advertising Manager

Tel (Main) +44 20 6702 3999

Direct: +44 20 8742 9262

www.alarab.co.uk

Al Arab Publishing House

Kensington Centre

177-179 Hammersmith Road

London W6 8BS , UK

Tel: (+44) 20 7602 3999

Fax: (+44) 20 7602 8778

Follow Us
© The Arab Weekly, All rights reserved