You may be aware that several countries joined the European Union on May 1st. This had led to a deal of idiotic speculation in certain British newspapers about the flood of refugees (from these countries) who would be arriving in Britain to take advantage of welfare benefits, the great weather and the marvellous food. Or something like that.

This seems to be a peculiarly British delusion. Some people do really believe that there are millions of foreigners who are desperate to come to Britain for one reason for another, and something has to be done about it. Never mind that there is precious little evidence of it happening before when other countries (such as Spain, Portugal and Greece) joined the European Union a few years back. Now the floodgates are open, and of course there is indeed no evidence of a large influx of immigrants from Lithuania or wherever, as David Aaronovitch points out in The Guardian.

The reality is that the poorer countries that have joined the European Union over the years have generally done extremely well out of it, and the general trend has been for their nationals to return home as the economy has improved, not for people to leave! Ireland is probably the best example of this.

Nevertheless, immigration remains a sensitive subject in the UK. This led to one of the one of the most disgraceful decisions made by any British government in recent years, when Hong Kong people were denied British Citizenship in the leadup to the Handover. This was based on the wholly irrational fear that millions of people might leave Hong Kong and move to the UK. Of course it was never going to happen, but there is this strange idea that (1) large numbers of people will want to give up everything and move to a foreign country, and (2) that most of them would choose Britain as their destination. No, I don’t think so.

Posted in

4 responses to “No-one wants to come”

  1. Eric avatar

    Britain’s failure to grant real passports to HKers is usually looked at from the British immigration angle, where it’s easy to believe it was solely motivated by racism. But on the other hand, giving HKers such an easy escape route from HK would be (or at least be seen as) a tacit admission that they believed political conditions under Mainland rule would deteriorate so far (e.g. 6-4 redux) that such an escape route would become necessary for large numbers of people. Aside from being a diplomatic disaster, that would have contributed to general panic in Hong Kong and maybe even caused a general economic collapse.
    Normally, even working poor in middle or higher income countries don’t wanna up and move abroad just to get a wage boost, but things were very different right before the handover. Lots of tension in the air. Remember the outflux to Canada of everyone who could get an investors’ visa? That was just the upper class. Imagine if the middle and working classes got swept up in it too.
    And to Britain’s credit, in the end, they did end up granting full citizenship to the people who were really getting screwed due to racism, on the part of Beijing and Hong Kong: Indians. (Some, but not many, managed to get Chinese citizenship too; not sure how that one worked).

    Like

  2. Chris avatar

    I agree that you could place that interpretation on the British government’s decision, but I don’t think it is correct. It was quite simply based on a fear that if people in Hong Kong had the right to come to the UK, millions would flood in. The obligation to Hong Kong people mattered less than the irrational fear of mass immigration.
    In 1984, British foreign minister Geoffrey Howe said the following in a House of Commons debate on Hong Kong:

    “I have to say that I do not believe that this Parliament, or a successor, would favour changes which stimulated emigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom”.

    Clear enough, I think.
    Also, I don’t see how granting these rights would have caused a problem in Hong Kong. The key to this is the point (on which I think we agree) that most people had/have no wish to emigrate, and so would see the right to settle in the UK as an ‘insurance policy’ against things going badly wrong. I wasn’t here 15-20 years ago when this was being debated, but books I have read on the subject seem clear that Hong Kong people were very disappointed that Britain refused to offer this ‘safety net’, and it led to the resignation of T.S.Lo from the Executive Council.

    Like

  3. GILES avatar
    GILES

    i agree entirely – why on earth would they want to go to britain – it’s a god-forsaken muddy little island with terrible weather and food – why would youy go there when france, spain and italy are so close.

    Like

  4. Sassy avatar

    Oh, boy, the title… I thought it was about sex.

    Like

Leave a reply to GILES Cancel reply