So it all comes down to that?

In Britain, we’re moving closer to what will certainly be a historic decision for the nation: a referendum on whether to remain a member of the European Union.

Such a lot is riding on it. Should Britain remain part of the world’s largest trading block, with all the clout that provides, but at the cost of the reduction in sovereignty it implies? Or should it leave, on the grounds that it would be better off maintaining its freedom of action, knowing that it can arrange more advantageous arrangements for itself in bilateral negotiations with individual other nations?

These are momentous matters, and they deserve to be treated with seriousness.

Even among supporters of continued membership, there is a broad consensus that much is wrong with the EU. In particular, a great many people feel that the right to free movement of labour has opened British borders to too many immigrants, and there’s a general suspicion that many of them arrive to take advantage of the British benefit system – even though it’s far from the most generous in Europe.

The concern about immigration is strongest on the right, but many on the left have taken it up on the basis that they ought to reflect the views of their electors, even if they don’t share them. Since the EU guarantees freedom of movement, the EU debate therefore focuses increasingly on the question of immigration. That means that the other issues, of national sovereignty or whether human rights and democracy are best defended inside or outside, become far less prominent.

Cameron with Donald Tusk, President of the European Council
The negotiations continue. But make little progress

Unfortunately, in his attempt to renegotiate the terms of British membership of the EU and persuade sceptical voters that he has improved them sufficiently to justify a vote to stay in, David Cameron has run into a brick wall on the right to free movement of citizens throughout the Union. It’s viewed as a fundamental right, and to be defended above all in a structure that guarantees freedom of movement to goods and capital – if they can move freely, why not people too?

So instead Cameron has been striving to have benefits rules changed, on the basis that if immigrant rights to benefits can be reduced, then immigration itself will fall. So, the Cameron argument runs, if we obtain agreement from the EU to let us reduce benefits for migrants, then it will be possible to persuade sceptical voters to back continued membership.

As a result, from being concerned with the great and lofty question of Britain’s position in the world, the EU debate has focused more and more on immigrant access to benefit payments. All in the hope that if the British government can win back the authority to cut them for EU migrants, it will win round voters unconvinced that the price of high immigration levels is worth paying for EU membership.

Even that is proving difficult for David Cameron to achieve in his negotiations. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, and ostensibly a Conservative ally of Cameron’s though also a contender to replace him as leader, is refusing to come out unequivocally in favour of the EU and is calling on the Prime Minister to come up with a better deal for Britain.

But Cameron has little to play with, and is scrabbling for a few more concessions as the time to finalise the deal approaches. The latest point of contention is the refusal of a group of four nations, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, to go along with Cameron’s demand for the right to cut British child benefit payments to immigrants whose children are living abroad.

Migration Watch, the leading anti-immigrant organisation, calculates the value of those payments as £55 million a year. “£1m a week,” as the organisation proclaims in tones of horror.

For the current financial year, the government deficit is projected to be £69billion. Or £1.3 billion a week. Well over a thousand times more.

And on that figure, a thousand times smaller, the future of Britain in the EU and the world may hang?

It’s never a bad thing to give the last word to Benjamin Franklin, so let’s.

For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.

Immigration, benefits and the words to say it all

Now Kathleen Carroll may not be a household name, but she’s done something that deserves a lot more publicity.

She’s a Senior Vice President with the Associated Press. Yesterday, she announced a decision to drop the words ‘illegal immigrant’ from AP’s vocabulary. On what grounds? That ‘illegal immigrant’ is a label that applies to an entire being whereas what is actually illegal is a behaviour. 

Kathleen Carroll, speaking out. Which she does rather well

So she proposes that instead of talking about the millions of illegal immigrants in the US, we talk of the millions of people living illegally in the US. The phrases are pretty much of the same length, but hers shifts the focus from the person to the illegal activity. In other words, it’s a restatement of a truth recognised by humanity and in particular by its religions for centuries: hate the sin, not the sinner.

Now I’m not keen on political correctness and I’m glad it’s been tamed in recent years. On the other hand, I like even less those who were so quick to attack it: too often they seemed to me to be denying the power of words, a power it’s dangerous to ignore and which Kathleen Carroll seems to have grasped fully.

There was an excellent illustration of the misuse of that power this week. George Osborne, slated to be the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2015, has had an agitated week. It saw the start of major reductions in benefits which could cost the poor close to £1000 a year in income, while this weekend tax cuts come into effect which will give, among others, bankers paid over £1 million a year an increase of £54,000. The gift comes just as a new report establishes how the ‘recklessness’ and ‘incompetence’ of the top bankers at HBOS drove that august organisation to bankruptcy and a taxpayer-funded bailout worth £20 billion.

So it was instructive to see Osborne pick on the other big story of the week, the sentencing of Mick Philpott for setting fire to his house and killing six of his children. Osborne pointed to the case as a glaring example of the debilitating effect of the benefit culture.

Now I’d be perfectly happy to see all arsonists who kill six children denied benefits, except for the board and lodging they can receive in jail.

Of course, we all know that only one person would be affected. But Osborne’s denunciation of the welfare state subtly communicates the idea that anyone on benefits is tainted, that they’re on a slippery slope that leads to kids burned to death in their beds.

It’s the same phenomenon that Kathleen Carroll pointed to: an ‘illegal immigrant’ is a tainted person meriting contempt or even hatred; but that ‘hard-working father and generous neighbour who happens to be living here illegally’ suggests something much less easy to dismiss.

Carroll outlined her views to the BBC, which went on to interview Sir Andrew Green of a group called Migration Watch, where ‘watch’ is, I suspect, the kind of thing you do from behind a twitching lace curtain.

Notice that ‘Sir’ in his name: the man’s a knight. Although I usually regard such titles as pretty empty, in his case it fits a treat – I’ve seldom heard someone take a position as benighted. 

He just couldn’t get his mind round the subtle distinction Carroll was making. Instead, he retreated into his stockade of platitudes, talking about people who’ve broken the law and who should face the consequences, about how we shouldn’t adopt a form of language that waters down that fundamental truth. Seeing the complete man or woman and not just the offence? Out of the question.

I was inclined to write him off as what I’ve always thought him to be: a mindless bigot. But that wouldn’t be right, would it?

So let me just say that Sir Andrew Green is a knight of the realm and a man prepared to put his head above the parapet in defence of his principles. By voicing mindless and bigoted views.