Doing over 50 debates, speaking for the Lib Dems and Remain, in the past few months I have seen that our arguments are more solid than Leave’s and win over undecided people.
A problem is that the points that people like me at a regional and local level, and Tim Farron nationally, are using are not the same as the less effective points being emphasised by Cameron.
You have to argue “the EU is good” not simply “I’ll make it less bad” or “disaster if we leave” as the PM has done.
A factual point that has a big impact of many undecided is that EU citizens living in the UK pay far more in tax than they draw on public services. One estimate is £20bn net and HMRC’s estimate is that it is 33% more paid than drawn.
So, if we did not have this source of people, doing jobs of value that someone has chosen to hire them for, there would be a bigger hole in the national budget. What parts of our schools and hospitals would Leavers cut or will they just borrow even more for the next generation to repay?
A typical undecided voter in counties in the South East (where I live and campaign) will have got, over the years, a general impression that EU migrants are a bad thing that costs them money. It’s the conventional wisdom. It’s an impression they get from the most popular newspapers or from people they may speak to.
But it is a vague impression that is totally wrong. I have seen in debate after debate when the point is made that the tax paid is much more than is drawn on services and that this is something they can check, they reconsider their view. People trust bodies like HMRC and tabloid readers don’t always trust their paper if they see an alternative source.
The problem is that few undecided people have the time to come to public debates. The majority get information through the national campaigns and TV news aren’t hearing points like this.
Likewise, many people might accept there is a tax windfall but don’t see any benefit from it. They see cuts, not investment, in local public services. Wherever these extra taxes from EU citizens are going, they feel it isn’t to their community.
Many of the benefits of being in the EU are simultaneously all around us but hidden from view. The EU has been, in a sense, too elitist. It hasn’t had the courage to be visible in people’s lives and more importantly, government in the UK hasn’t had the courage to make it visible
If we stay in the EU we need to make things like the UK’s tax windfall from free movement blatantly apparent.
Here are two ways the Chancellor could do this:
- Create a National Free Movement Dividend. A pot of money that is funded from some of the extra tax revenue HMRC estimates it gets because we have EU workers. This can be used to top up school and doctors’ surgery capacity, especially in places where there aren’t enough spaces.
- With the HMRC’s estimate of tax collected from EU citizens working in the UK, create an income tax reduction for every taxpayer called the National Free Movement Tax Reduction and show this alongside the other items listed on every payslip, P60 and HMRC annual tax statement.
We need to recognise that not everyone is feeling the benefit of being in the EU.
We need to make sure they do feel it and make it visible in daily life.
Immigration from the EU is good for this country. Who will have the courage to say it?
* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Carry Ons: Kenneth Williams's other films
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
Steve J Smith
David Warren
John Barrett
Nonconformistradical
Chloe
27 Comments
That is a genious idea. Why has no one come up with this before??
The die appears well and truly cast. The only incident that might save Remain is intervention by her Majesty on the lines of the Sunday before the Scots referendum.
if you believe immigration is good for us Anthony do you therefore believe it’s bad for the countries those workers come from?
Using your logic, How does a poor country benefit from paying for educating a generation only to have that generation leave and work and pay tax somewhere else?
Hi Rightsaid,
That’s a fair question.
I think free movement is good for people.
If people can make a choice about where they live they tend to be happier.
When I was a boy my father was made redundant and we moved from Bristol to Kent for his new job.
That was good for Bristol – one fewer family to support, good for Kent – my Dad could do a job of value for his employer and contribute to the county and good for us as a family . Good for all involved.
I think the view of most countries in Europe is that’s it’s beneficial if their people can move to better their lives. Is it not beneficial to the UK that some of our young people have gone elsewhere in Europe?
The problem is that we have mass immigration despite it being unpopular with the majority of the population. If it was not being argued for from a position of dominance this kind rhetoric would make sense. Really, politicians should be pinned down and forced to explain why they refuse to act democratically, in accordance with a majority view, even when they have campaigned to reduce immigration as is the case with this government.
Rightsaidfredfan 16th Jun ’16 – 1:48pm Several countries do this. The Philippines for instance train lots of nurses who work mainly in the Middle East and send remittances home.
Airbus, General Electric and Unilever are threatening to sue Leave for misuse of their logos. They all support Remain.
I think free movement is good for people.
But you can have free movement with limited/capped immigration!
Free movement does not mean right of access. So, by way of analogy, I’m free to go to a football match, however my freedom is limited by the number of seats: no seats, no admission, no grounds for complaint.
As for the “£20bn” figure, do read the actual report and understand what it actually represents, it isn’t in one year but over an arbitrary number of years. My suspicion is that much of the figure is actually derived from “bankers bonuses”…
I have been very worried that all the hate being spewed by The Leave campaign would spill over into violence. It now looks a though my fears were justified, if reports are correct that the man who shot Jo Cox shouted “britain First”.
I am praying for her.
Is hyperbole the norm in the UK?
Tesco delivery vans say “As fresh as if you had picked it yourself, or your money back”.
This is impossible.
Gardeners are told they need to get sweetcorn from the plant onto the table in less than an hour. So how often do Tesco pay out? Occasionally, according to a local driver.
Gove and Boris are challenging Cameron to veto Turkey NOW, which is silly. Turkey is nowhere near a decision on EU membership. A peace deal in Cyprus would be well worth having. Not sufficient though.
@Anthony
To answer your question no, it is not good for the UK to place the burden of educating it’s people onto the state only to have those young people leave the country and live in Europe or anywhere else for that matter. Having this freedom is good for the individual, not good for the country. But I can understand why a liberal would be in favour of this, because in liberal thinking the rights of the individual are (usually) more important than the good of the country. I don’t think liberals should kid themselves on that stripping a poor country of its doctors and nurses is a win win for all involved though.
What I also can’t understand is why a liberal would be in favour of an Undemocratic setup like the EU. Free trade and free movement of people (I.e the EEA) is liberal, Brexit and EEA is the liberal solution, not remaining in the EU.
@ Paul Barker,
I’m sorry but you need to look at the latest news.
Jayne
Desperately sad, and just shows what can happen when emotions run too high.
Roland Spot on regarding bankers bonuses.
For the average family to be net tax contributors earnings would need to be in the £35,000 – £37,000 bracket.
What does that mean Tim 13?
Whatever we might think of the politicians involved in the Leave campaign, it is absolutely out of order to suggest that they should in any way be blamed for the actions of a lone and presumably deranged murderer.
Antony – I’m delighted you believe that we need to “make the benefits of migration blatantly obvious” because I’ve been wondering how to explain it to a niece of mine and I’m hoping you can help.
She is now 27 and has a marketing job in London with several promotions under her belt, albeit starting from the bottom as young graduates must. She loves her job, works extremely hard (often involving working evenings) and is careful with money. The only fly in the ointment is that she is in a sector with only average pay (not banking!) so has little money for accommodation and has had to rent a series of rooms in HMOs (House of Multiple Occupancy) since she moved to London. She now considers herself lucky to be renting the box room in a large house at a discount to the market rate because, as a young woman from a good family, she is the ideal lodger.
At her age I had just bought my first house just outside London but she must pay so much of her income towards someone else’s mortgage that’s there is very little left over to save each month. It’s not clear how, or even if, she can ever set up home with her long-term boyfriend and start a family.
Clearly, massive inward migration isn’t the only reason that living costs are so high but, unless the normal rules of supply and demand don’t apply to housing, it must be a major factor. In the circumstances the view from 60,000 feet about how good migration is for the budget or ‘the economy’ (translation: for those who own and control the economy) really doesn’t cut much ice.
So can you please explain to her and her family and the millions of others in more or less the same position why the benefits of migration are “blatantly obvious” because I must admit, I can’t.
I stand by my general comment – no accusations were being made about anyone, and nothing more specific is being said or needs to be said. It is clearly a great tragedy, and judging by the words of her loved ones and those who knew her, she was transparently greatly loved and a very good person also.
@Gordon
“Clearly, massive inward migration isn’t the only reason that living costs are so high but, unless the normal rules of supply and demand don’t apply to housing, it must be a major factor.”
Shortage of workers in the construction industry – hence severe impact on supply? Must be a factor with brickies earning £100K/year.. Problem not confined to the UK – you can also find building workers from other EU countries e.g. Romania working in France where they also have difficulty in recruiting building workers locally.
No Gordon
Immigration is not the problem. Successive governments have not made sure that housing especially social housing is being built. It is not primarily a problem of demand, but one of lack of supply. Also it is a particular problem in London where very wealthy people buy houses and leave them empty to speculate. You can still buy houses in other parts of the country for reasonable prices. So what we need right now is a massive house building programme to include lots of social housing, which by greatly increasing supply will bring prices back to what people can afford.
Oh, and by the way, people who come here from the EU to work tend to rent, so they can hardly be forcing up house prices.
@Mick Taylor – it’s because it’s not managed and planned for is the reason people get exercised about it. Can people who are not for planned migration (as they have in about 86% of the world) give an upper limit? Also how they will manage it?
I have watched my once-beautiful city become overcrowded with its open, green areas being picked off, one by one – even our parks.
At what point does GDP become more important than quality of life?
Rightsaidfredfan
To answer your question no, it is not good for the UK to place the burden of educating it’s people onto the state only to have those young people leave the country and live in Europe or anywhere else for that matter
Indeed, why pay out to educate UK people at all? Leave them uneducated, let other countries raise taxes to educate their people and import those people. And when people in the UK complain about it, sneer at them “Oh, you are all racists and you don’t understand, we need immigrants to keep the HNS going etc”. Sneer at those working class people who have been denied opportunities from your privileged place higher up the class scale, because you know, you really don’t like that sort, and that’s a reason why you like to have lots of immigrants because anything is better than those working class plebs.
Class prejudice in the Liberal Democrats STINKS!!!!
I myself am strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, and I am not opposed to immigration. But this high and mighty elitist disregard for the real concerns that people lower down the scale have on the issue, for perfectly legitimate reasons, disgusts me.
Tim13, just to put my earlier post into context, it was not a reference to your post, and I don’t take exception to anything you wrote. Sorry if that was not clear.
@Mick Taylor – Increased numbers of people needing to rent and the associated increase in demand for rental properties, drives up rents and also makes the return offered on rental properties greater. Hence this increases demand for houses to rent which drives up house prices. Basic economics isn’t it?
@ Nonconformistradical – Agreed. Shortage of skilled workers certainly has a severe impact on the construction sector both in terms of its capacity and the cost of building. It’s worth noting in passing that inadequate skills training in quantity and quality isn’t limited to construction but is typical of many sectors at great cost to the nation and victims of poor policy alike.
Other important costs include land (inevitably in short supply especially where it’s most needed in London and the SE) and especially finance. When banks can lend virtually risk free (in the sense that even if they end up foreclosing on a mortgage they have the property as security in a rising market so the loss is negligible) then they are incentivised to lend as much as possible; the more they lend the more profit (via the interest) they get. That’s good for the bank (or at least its directors) but not for the wider economy because, as more of people’s income is sucked into paying ever-larger mortgages, their disposable income (other things being equal) shrinks leading to reduced demand for other things which slowly strangles the productive sectors of the economy.
@ Mick Taylor – Immigration is not the problem” How on earth do you come to that conclusion? For the last decade net migration has run at 400,000 – 500,000 per annum, largely into London and the SE (and that’s not counting substantial illegal migration which no-one talks about), so probably over 5 million in the decade. That’s equivalent to a city rather larger than either Greater Manchester or Birmingham.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33266792
Meanwhile, building is at near record lows – under 150,000 ‘permanent dwellings’ in recent years, only some of them in the overheated SE and massively down from the 1970s but that’s all the industry can manage nowadays because of capacity constraints (see above on skills). See fig 5 in this link.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_373513.pdf
Thanks David (Allen)