To state the obvious, Europe is failing to tackle its long term refugee “crisis”. Less obviously, I would argue that it is primarily a failure of analysis and planning, and above all, failure to seek consensus.
Ironically, Cameron gets closest to a coherent plan. He plans a token effort, just enough to defuse criticism and satisfy shallow consciences. Then he can retreat into military fantasy, and dream of the Pax Britannica he will impose in Syria, just as we did in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq (!)
Merkel’s plan, if more appealing, contains a gaping hole. Germany blithely invites half a million refugees a year. But when they come, Germany demands that other nations should also take a share. Eastern Europe angrily refuses to play ball.
Juncker has a plan, to set quotas in Brussels for everyone else to adhere to. Nobody really wants to listen. Many nations want to take fewer refugees, but some, especially those well placed economically, are happy to take more. Meanwhile, numbers on the ground keep changing. Brussels, which should be brokering an agreement and seeking flexible ways to share the various financial and humanitarian burdens, instead seeks alongside Germany to lay down the law.
Overhanging all this is the baleful influence of Europe’s “Ever Closer Union”, its imposed and ill-fitting single currency, and its strange idea of open borders between separate sovereign nations. “Ever Closer Union” resembles an atomic bomb. When you force together the separate components of an atom bomb into ever-closer union, it explodes.
If open borders ever made sense, they surely do no longer. Border posts on Europe’s motorways would be a small sacrifice if they enabled (for example) Germany and Hungary each to plan their own migration policies, certainly by negotiation and agreement, but without coming to blows over their differences.
Why is EU immigration such a political hot potato in the UK? Partly because “winners” (business and the well-off) have not compensated “losers” (those who suffer overstretched local services or lose their jobs to those Polish plumbers.) But also for the simple reason that Britain has no control. People want a government with the reserve power to pull up its own drawbridge. Paradoxically, that might well make Britain far more willing to accept refugees in considerable numbers – because, if it did all become too much, it could be stopped.
Germany is a nation with a highly developed sense of its own moral purpose. Strong governance, sound finance, austerity economics, good housekeeping, environmental concern and charitable compassion are all facets of that self-belief. There is an Achilles heel, which is that self-belief can lead to arrogance, to the belief that you can teach others how to behave. That is a recipe for disaster.
The “compassionate” cannot dictate to the “hard-hearted”, or vice versa. Within and between the European nations, we need to talk. The “compassionate” should recognise that they may be asking others to shoulder the heaviest loads, and that there are limits to how much change society can bear. The “hard-hearted” should recognise that there is a massive humanitarian problem out there, that the West itself bears some of the blame, and that our own security also depends on resolving it.
Europe has a democratic deficit and has failed to develop consensus. If Liberal Democrats want the EU to survive – which frankly is no longer a given – they should support a looser, freer, more consensual Europe, a Europe which will bend rather than break when it is hit by the storms.
Britain should neither “opt out” on refugees, nor simply follow Brussels diktat. We should negotiate flexibly. Germany, with its much greater manpower needs, cannot expect Britain to match its intake. Equally, Britain should not try to stand aloof from global crisis.
* David Allen is a member of the Rushcliffe Local Party and has been a member of the Lib Dems or its (SDP) predecessor since 1981
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Proof that Bluesky is primmer than the Victorians
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
Mark
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
Chris Lewcock
12 Comments
Well said, David. And now Germany has abandoned Schengen. But, don’t worry. Tim has a plan!
David Allen, besides the jab about “Pax Britannica”, I think this is a very good article. You have written several articles I have liked on here.
So I ask you, why in general do you seem averse to “Orange Bookers”, even if they are not the libertarian kind?
An excellent article, thank you.
‘Paradoxically, that might well make Britain far more willing to accept refugees in considerable numbers – because, if it did all become too much, it could be stopped.’
It does illustrate a problem though doesn’t it? Once the EU starts to talk about quotas it is a tacit acceptance that large-scale people movement in one direction is a problem. It might be tacit, but once you talk about quotas you are saying that unfettered free movement has limits. Whether that large scale people movement is of migrants from Syria or economic migrants from the A8 or whatever is not relevant. People movement is people movement – and seeing it as problematic is not comfortable for the EU given the importance of free movement to the whole integration project.
The EU is ultimately a technocratic construct, it is not a state and it is hard for the EU to start making, essentially, commitments on behalf of states that are not far from open-ended. It’s not hard to see why people might bristle. EU migration is a hot potato in the UK because this country has taken the brunt of EU movements that quite simply can not be said to be reciprocal in any real sense. What one makes of that is another matter. But let’s be clear on what the EU is saying here – free movement has limits on current national set-ups.
David Allen | Mon 14th September 2015 – 6:29 pm A small point, please consider Central Europe. Prague is west of Vienna. There is a lot of Europe east of all EU countries.
Little Jackie Paper 14th Sep ’15 – 9:30pm ” … once you talk about quotas you are saying that unfettered free movement has limits.” Yes, how would they be allocated? Who will decide that someone who has landed in Greece from Libya should be compelled to go to Ireland? or that someone who only speaks Arabic should be required to go to Hungary? (and learn Hungarian)?
LJP – yes, Europe has discovered that unfettered free movement has limits. After all, people worry about relatively gentle one-way migration phenomena within a single nation, such as the drift from the provinces to London. Politicians debate whether things should be done to incentivise a reversal. That is what they should be doing. But in Europe there are no parallel mechanisms.
The US developed a federation with a powerful centre, spending a quarter of all tax revenue, which makes it possible to resolve issues such as internal migration by action from the centre. After 70 years, Europe has a weak centre which spends 1% of all tax revenue. Europe must therefore accept that it is a federation led by its constituent nations, who must negotiate together to resolve issues. As the capacity to take refugees varies greatly between nations, one size will not fit all.
Watching the TV depressed at seeing the razor wire and border guards return in Europe but realistic enough to realize that with such an influx of refugees and no sound policy emerging then it was bound to happen .Note how silent the USA and UN have been in this international crisis.
The atom bomb metaphor is apt.
We urgently need to develop a plan for positive reform of the EU or by the time we get to the promised referendum no-one will be listening. Maybe they’ve already stopped.
Thanks Gordon.
Jared Diamond, in his classic analysis of the origins of civilisation “Guns, Germs and Steel”, posed an intriguing question. China, over the past two millenia, has had similar resources to Europe. China, with relatively minor internal ethnic differences, has had far less conflict than has Europe. Yet Europe has developed faster and more effectively. Why?
Diamond’s conclusion was that both societies had had their fair share of disastrously misbegotten policies over the years, and of crazy leaders like Hitler and Mao. However, because of its greater diversity, Europe has generally been quicker to correct the mistakes and throw out the crazy leaders. Diversity has been to Europe’s advantage.
Let’s not go all UKIP, mind you. Too much diversity has caused too much conflict, and if UKIP got their chance to “live peacefully alongside Europe”, they’d no doubt soon be fighting against Europe. We need an EU, but we need a looser EU.
Eddie Sammon,
Your comment puzzled me, until I remembered that austerity economics was one of the facets of German morlaism which I cited. Well, the fact that Germany has moral motives doesn’t mean that they always come up with the right policy, as indeed they don’t with some of the other policies I mentioned. Austerity in Europe has performed far worse than weak Keynesianism in the US, because it just isn’t helpful in a depression.
Besides that, Osborne’s motives for “austerity” are wholly different. It is a smokescreen for hitting benefit claimants while being generous to the rich. Osborne hasn’t actually tried very hard to cut the deficit. Ironically, Corbyn might do better, with his high tax policy!
Thanks David. I think what I’m saying is you often come across more left wing below the line than you do in your articles! It is just the impression I have got. Good points though.
Excellent analysis of a difficult issue and sensible pragmatic conclusion.