As well as restricting benefits access, yesterday Ed Miliband announced new plans for EU migrants already here, already in work. He wants to stop Europeans being exploited so their work doesn’t undermine British pay and conditions. David Cameron recently presented comparable plans, looking not just at limiting ‘pull factors’, but dealing with the stresses of immigration on society and public services. Labour is being castigated for avoiding the migration debate, but it isn’t the only party with a blind spot.
Cameron hopes to renegotiate the detail of free movement and restrict benefits for four years, but says he will also establish a fund for local areas where services are overburdened by unexpectedly high population influxes. This is only fair – both main parties argue EU migration is net positive for the Treasury, so it is important that these fiscal benefits translate into better services on the ground, not stretched ones.
This might not, however, aid the pro-EU cause. Any reform to the ‘free movement of labour’ principle that Cameron could achieve would apply to Norway, Iceland, and probably Switzerland. These are the countries most often used as models for Brexit. Sceptics, then, will argue Britain could have its cake and eat it – could enjoy these projected migration reforms and also make progress on other European issues: sovereignty, high costs, red tape etc.
Similar analysis applies to Miliband’s plans. Crackdowns on exploitation, coercive work practices and minimum wage abuse are very well, but should be pursued equally vigorously in or out of Europe, for as long as the problems persist. It’s odd that the Conservatives haven’t matched this commitment – it would fit easily into their rhetoric on modern slavery and on working our collective way out of recession.
What’s odder, though, is that Ukip doesn’t appear to have ideas in this area. During his by-election campaign Mark Reckless considered the possibility of UK-resident EU migrants being given time-limited work permits after Brexit, but his party quickly denied this would be the case. Current migrants would be allowed to stay, in accordance with the Vienna Convention. Ukip’s success and popularity rests on its migration stance, plus its commitment to ordinary working people. The party is agreed that current EU migrants won’t be repatriated after an ‘Out’ referendum, but neither of its policy pages discusses measures to meet their pressures.
Assume Ukip gets into government, wins a referendum, negotiates the exit agreement it favours and imposes the Australian-model border controls it desires. None of this will ease their voters’ immediate concerns – that the 2.3 million EU residents already here have increased job competition, crowded services and driven down wages. As the only party unanimously in favour of exit, it behoves Ukip leaders to present the clearest possible exit blueprint, lest they fall into the quicksand that trapped Alex Salmond and find themselves unable to justify how their vision would work.
