Closed borders and closing minds?

I returned from a brief trip to Romania with distinctly mixed emotions. There was the pleasure of a great trip, seeing old friends, being treated with immense hospitality – and at the same time, as this was my first trip to Romania since the Brexit vote, a sense of profound sadness and what we, as a nation, have decided, and perhaps even more importantly why. I know the reasons for the referendum result are complex, and I know that my views will not be popular with some, but as I see it a very significant part of what lies behind the result is old-fashioned xenophobia. I mean that precisely: a fear or distrust of strangers or foreigners.

Romania is special…

I have a long connection with Romania. My wife is Romanian, and I’ve been visiting regularly for well over a decade. There are all kinds of things I love about the country. The food is generous and fascinating – things like the way they serve pickled chillies and their own special sour cream with their soups to the great cheeses and cakes. Their folk tales, with scary dragon-like ‘zmeu’ and their scarier mothers, and even worse, the wonderfully named witch-like ‘zgripțuroaică’, are excellent. They have great cats too. This is Miți (‘Mitzi’).

Version 2

As for Romanian people, they’re great too – or rather, they’re just people. That’s really the point. There’s nothing to be especially scared of about Romanians – and they certainly don’t deserve the demonisation that they’ve been subjected to over the last few years, particularly by Nigel Farage, who amongst other things suggested that people should be scared if Romanians moved into their street, and memorably told James O’Brien that ‘you know the difference’ between Romanians and Farage’s own German wife and children.  The suggestion that Romanians are essentially cheats and criminals, people to fear, people to worry about, people that we shouldn’t let into our country, is no more credible than the idea that Romanians are all vampires – and yes, I spent half my time on this trip in Transylvania.

Romania isn’t special..

I know Romania – which is why I know the good things about it. I’ve eaten the food, listened to the folk tales, stroked the cats, walked in the forests and mountains, and spent time with the people. This, however, is not a post about how wonderful Romania is. I’m sure the same is true of every country. When you spend time with people anywhere, when you open yourself to what they have to say, when you want to learn about them, you soon find that – if you don’t start from a position of distrust or fear.

That’s what saddens me so much about what seems to have happened in the UK. We seem to be going backwards, looking inwards, and doing so out of fear. Neville Chamberlain was referring to Czechoslovakia when he talked of ‘a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing’ – but that was back in 1938, and one of the great things that I thought had happened in the intervening years was that we had begun to learn a bit more about people from around the world – and from Eastern Europe in particular. Instead, it seems we don’t just know nothing about people from some of those countries – we know less than nothing, as what we ‘know’ is based on lies, exaggerations, small pieces of ‘information’ taken out of context and twisted into something that may be even worse than lies.

Closing borders and closing minds…

The thing is, by having more people from more places in the UK, we can start to learn more, to open more, and to benefit much more – it’s not a coincidence that there is more tolerance in places where there has been more immigration, and support for UKIP and Brexit is greatest in places with the least immigration. The converse, sadly, is also likely to be true. If we have less immigration, if indeed many of those who have come here decide to leave, then we all lose. We lose opportunities to learn, to broaden our horizons, to find something new.

‘But it’s not about xenophobia, we have legitimate concerns’ will be the response of many Brexiters, and in their own minds I’m sure that’s true – and there are huge concerns in the UK at the moment, from the huge levels of inequality and poverty, the creaking NHS, the strained and dysfunctional housing market, low wages and so forth. Blaming immigration – which easily mutates into blaming immigrants themselves – for these problems, however, is very revealing. The evidence, at least the academic evidence (I won’t use the unfashionable term ‘experts’) is generally against making such an association. Of course I am biased – but I am aware of my bias, at least of its existence. Academics refer to something called ‘confirmation bias’ – broadly speaking, that there is a tendency to seek out and to believe evidence that confirms your own theories, your beliefs (and indeed your prejudices), whilst downplaying or disparaging evidence that opposes it.

As someone in favour of immigration (for all the reasons mentioned above) I am naturally predisposed to evidence that makes immigration seem a positive. I do at least acknowledge that. Why, then, would somebody take the converse position: downplaying, denying or disparaging the evidence that suggests (for example) that ‘health tourism’ is minimal, that immigration does not impact upon employment rates, that has an infinitesimal effect on wages and so forth? That is where my biggest sadness comes. The main reason to choose to believe stories that blame immigration rather than those that point out the positives is that those stories confirm existing prejudices. Confirmation bias in practice… in this case confirming the xenophobia.

That’s where my sadness comes in. We’ll survive Brexit – if nothing else, spending time with Romanians provides a strong and healthy reminder that people can get through awful times, outlast awful governments, and find a way to make the best of it. Right now, Romanian people are protesting against a government that literally wants to stop corruption being a crime – but they’ve lived through dictatorship and come out the other side. We’ll do the same – ‘muddling through’ in British style perhaps. That we have to is sad – and that we’ve chosen to close our minds as well as our borders is even sadder.

14 thoughts on “Closed borders and closing minds?

  1. I too find the current situation depressing. I am of the ‘peace and love’ generation – yet these very people are the ones who overwhelmingly have blocked the next generation of opportunities to live, work and (like you) love in Europe. Sadder still are the interviews with these people who talk about ‘too many Chinese restaurants’, wanting to take control but they can’t say what of, and cite the tastiness of tomatoes or the bendiness of bananas – what they really mean is they don’t like foreigners. Of course if we are to maintain our health and public services we will need foreigners from the commonwealth to replace the Eastern Europeans and when they don’t like that they will blame the Remainers.

    1. I’m not sure who you count as being part of the – ‘peace and love’ generation – but let’s take it that it applies to those of us who were born in the early to late-mid 1940s.
      Many of us had benefited from the relaxation of the previous tight controls on who was chosen to have grants to enter University to all those chosen by Universities would get grants.
      Election of President of University Unions and NUS moved from the
      traditional covert Tories = Captain of Rugby or Cricket, and vice President, Captain of Hockey or Lacrosse.
      to the overtly political – Broad Left / NOLS
      Kinnock, Straw, Clarke, and later, Slipman, Aaronovitch and Philips.
      How quickly they turned upon their younger selves.
      How quickly they discarded their political ladders to success such as CND.
      How quickly they pulled up the ladder of University Fees and Maintenance GRANTS and substituted the razor rope of Loans.
      Therefore, be not surprized at the retreat into petty nationalizm of so many of that ‘peace and love’ generation –
      “They were only playing leapfrog”
      and still are.

  2. I know that xenophobia lives, but I don’t see it as the main reason behind Brexit. If you care to take a look at some of those who want to change the democratic vote you may find the reason. Although it is probably not the case in such places as London, the majority of the people of this country are sick and tired of those who aspire to tell us what to think – they want a change.
    Am I the only one who remembers who it was who caused all of our present problems? How the bankers drained the real economy dry and how Tony Blair and Bush started a war that had nothing to do with us? These are the people who make the British sick and tired and also just happen to be the same ones who want to reverse the vote.

    1. Excellent post and I agree with you. As to the bankers and wars, that was not the fault of the EU. If people really wanted change, they should engage. So many people moan about being left behind or ignored but do nothing about it. If those people feel they are being told what to think, why accept it? Challenge any such notion. I resent being referred to as a liberal elite because I voted remain and I make that point wherever I can. I worked hard to gain my qualifications and I have a good job and feel no need to apologise for that. Sadly so many people are xenophobic and just don’t want to realise or want to admit that this is the case. I am equally saddened over closed minds and closed borders.

    2. Sadly all the vote has done (apart from impoverish us culturally, financially and so forth) is mean that another bunch of revolting people have more power over us – from Murdoch and Trump to Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling. I understand (and agree with) the frustration with Blair and the rest, but in practice they’re not the people who are being harmed by this.

      1. @davidcoles99 February 20, 2017 at 5:26 pm

        ” … it is generally less fortunate people who will suffer most! ”
        “For whom the bell tolls”
        As austerity bites deeper and harder, as Our=NHS is Spiv-ed into Private hands and as the Private/Employment Pension funds are allowed to freeze their levels of increase to Zero, millions more of us will be pitchforked into that group of “less fortunate people”.
        In fact, we’ll be downright POOR!
        So, nix on your optimizm.

  3. Pingback: In lumina
  4. Amazing post. I can not tell much about the Brexit and the reasons behind it, but I can see how easy is to fear the unknown. And if keep ourselves distant. how the unknown will be known?

  5. The problem with the immigration debate (such as it is) in this country, is that has a become a false dichtomy: Either you support completely open immigration– or you’re a racist/xenophone who wants to close the door altogether and have no immigration whatsoever.

    Yes there are those in latter category, a mindset often seated in xenophobia. However in my experience, the vast majority of people who have concerns, have no problem with immigrants per se (indeed many are migrants themselves). The concern is with the rate of immigration, especially that migration from the rest of the EU is unfettered; this is not borne out of racism, but out of practicality: In other words these people would have no issue with immigration, if infrastructure kept pace– a question of space and not race.

    How can the goverment plan for the adequate provision of housing, health care, state schooling, transport and so on, if the govt can’t estimate accurately how many immigrants from the EU will be arriving of a year? It seems to me the cries of “racism” or “xenophobia” from politicians (and their acolytes in the media), is a way of politicians avoiding these awakward questions. There at least some honest politicans about… Jack Straw was in government in 2004, when the borders were opened up to eastern EU nations. Ten years later, he admitted that:
    “[The Home Office gave] a prediction of ‘between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010’. Events proved these forecasts worthless. Net migration reached close to a quarter of a million at its peak in 2010. Lots of red faces, mine included”.
    It’s little wonder there have been concerns about the impact of immigration, if only up to 13,000 were expected and in fact a population increase the size of the city of Salford occured.

    Then there’s the question of wage compression. The UK’s independent fact checking charity, Full Fact, looked into wat academics/experts have said. Full Fact noted there were a mixed reports, but concluded: “There is at least some agreement among the government and academics that migrants reduced wages at the bottom”.

    It’s ironic you talk about being wary of confirmation bias in the blog, because you state:
    “It’s not a coincidence that there is more tolerance in places where there has been more immigration, and support for UKIP and Brexit is greatest in places with the least immigration”.
    Not coincidence? Well, actually just not true: The council areas that returned the highest Brexit vote shares and have a strong UKIP presence– Boston, South Holland and Great Yarmouth– they have had a large influx of migration from eastern EU nations. In contrast amongst the council areas that returned amongst the lowest Brexit vote shares were in rural Scotland, which have had the least immigration.

    At present EU immigration is unfettered, whilst non-EU immigration isn’t. It’s my observation Brexiteers (including Nigel Farage, who has admitted he answered a question badly re the Romanian next-door neighbour comments) would like all immigration based on merit; probably a point-based system decided on skills, language ablity, character and health (similar to systems used in Canada or NZ). It’s unclear yet whether this will become government policy; however the it would make immigration a level playing field for everyone, the UK would get the people it needs, and the govt could also manage (and plan for) numbers coming in.

    The above is also the least racist form of migration regulation. It’s amusing that many Remainers like to daub Brexiteers “racist”– yet those Remainers support a system which effectively discriminates citizen from 26 select countries (predominantly white), against peoples from the rest of the world. There’s a word beginning with R, that describes such discrimination, based on somebody’s nationality…

    Of course there are always going to those who bristle at any form of immigration– however I believe that a merit-based system would alay most people’s concerns about immigration levels and there see it as fair. We have a tradition of welcoming immigrants from across the world, and have been a mutli-cultural country, long before the Maastricht Treaty came along. Those in Remain camp obsessing about xenophobia in the UK would do well look at the rest of Europe, indeed the rest of the world, and realise they’d be hard pressed to find a country that has been more tolerant of incoming migration/migrants– and will continue to be so.

  6. >>> Sadly all the vote has done (apart from impoverish us culturally, financially and so forth) is mean that another bunch of revolting people have more power over us – from Murdoch and Trump to Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling <<<

    I can see why you’d find it disconcerting to the likes of them gaining more power.

    With regards to Bojo, IDS and Grayling: A curious aspect of the referendum was how many Remainers worried that without the EU, the Tories would be able to do what they like: As if the UK is one-party state, with the Conservative party an unmoveable monolith to rule in perpetuity.

    Yet the beauty of Westminster system, is that legislation is initiated by those who are elected by the public; they are accountable to the British public, their debates are held in public, they can be lobbied by the public, and they can be removed by the public. The likes of Boris, Ian Duncan Smith and so on can be removed in person by their constituents; the party that they represent can be voted against across the country. Furthermore legislation can be debated at length and can be amended.
    The irony is, the EU is closer to what these Remainers fear: The EU Commission has the sole ability to initiate and rescind legislation; yet commissioners are not elected by the public, their debates are held behind closed doors and they cannot be lobbied by the electorate. (Yes there’s the EU Parliament, but it can only decide on what it is given by the EUC and there’s little in the way of debate or amendment). It’s rather like the USSR model of governance, little wonder Mikael Gorbachev mused that the EU was a reconstruction of the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

    This, to respond Lindsay’s comment above, is why so British people voted Leave—precisely because we can’t change the EU and it won’t be changed. Anything that stops the crawl to ‘ever closer union’, is rejected. This why politicians of all stripes who disingenuously claim to be able to reform the EU from within, fail.

    Trump is a trickier proposition, as the British public cannot vote him in or out office, nor lobby him. Whether we are in the EU or not, doesn’t alter the fact he is the USA president. But again Trump– as with Grayling, IDS et al—is transient. In fact more transient than our MPs, given Trump will only have four to eight years in power (if it makes it that long…). What the UK can do out of the EU, is have full self-determination over our foreign affairs, and thus the British electorate can choose a government who will engage with POTUS, who (s)he may be, in the best way.

    As for Murdoch, he only has as much power as we all decide to give him. It is supposed he wields all this power through his outlets: If that were true, the Conversatives would have won the last three general elections with comfortable majorities, given his fervent endorsement of the Conservative Party since 2010 through his outlets. Yet we’ve had two hung parliaments, and the Tories winning just a slender majority for the other outcome.
    We are not obliged to watch Sky News. We don’t have to but The Sun… indeed people decreasingly are, and his paper is seen as joke (you only look at the Fbk page of Dan Wooton, to see the opprobrium he gets in his comments section).

    With regards to "impoverish us culturally, financially and so forth": I don’t think the outlook will be as panglossian as the Leave camp will make out, inflation has been a more noticeable problem since the vote. On the other hand, I don’t think it’ll be as bad as the Remainers would have us believe.

    “As a result of a vote for Brexit” (I use those words advisedly, from Remain campaigners before the ref) we would go into recession, house prices would crash and unemployment would rise by 500,000 and businesses would leave the UK. In reality the UK economy is growing (albeit slightly), houses are certainly not getting any cheaper and unemployment has dropped by 37,000 in the third quarter of 2016. Despite many threats of leaving the country, how many companies have done so since the vote? Multi-nationals are still investing here. Our manufacturing sector has seen its busiest period since 1988.

    Remainers like to point to the £ dropping sharply in value since the vote. Before the ref, the BoE and IMF agreed that the £ was artificially over-valued by about 20%, and agreed to reduce the value of it, and sure enough if it has reduced by that amount. This would’ve happened whatever the result of the ref; if the vote had been for Remain, doubtless that news would have been accompanied by something else.

    So-called Project Fear is reminiscent of when the UK had to leave the ERM. Politicians, academics and business leaders (many of the same voices as now) was harbingers of doom, telling us the sky would fall in and it would be like Threads if we left the ERM. In the end the UK did leave; after the initial shock, there was then 15 years of persistent growth. Whether Brexit remains beneficial in the long term, remains to be seen of course.

    Impoverish us culturally– an interesting one. Though too weasel-wordy to counter– what culture has it impoverished exactly I wonder? If anything, I’d say Brexit will enhance our culture. The culture complaint is one typically heard from those who can’t/won’t distinguish between the EU and Europe: The wonder of Europe, is how richly varied the continent’s culture is; the EU’s plan for an ever-closer union seeks to eradicate that, by making Europe (well at present three-fifths of the continent) in a homogeneous and thereby bland lump.

    The UK would be specifically susceptible to this, because our culture being rooted in Common Law and Magna Carta: This has given British citizens the freedom do anything they please, as long as it’s not illegal; plus habeas corpus and presumed innocence. All this has led to the British’s ‘anarchic’ and pragmatic culture, which has made the UK a cultural powerhouse. The EU is a mindset of rigidity, top-down orders, box-ticking, ideas being more important than practicalities, presumed guilt; plus only that which is sanctioned by the state, being allowed. Brexit will save the British culture from that fate, and retain our innovative and pioneering spirit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s