Boris Johnson challenged the Remain campaign to answer five questions in a Facebook retaliation to Jack Straw’s branding of him as a “Putin apologist” over comments he made about the Ukraine conflict. Without invoking Godwin’s Law, I thought I would take a shot at answering them.
- How can you possibly control EU immigration into this country?
First of all, I would agree that immigration in high numbers is socially damaging, but I would argue that a closed door policy is not the way to deal with it. Under the current national circumstances, to abruptly cut off low-skilled migration would harm the economy, and the proposed quota system would also discourage the higher skilled migration necessary for institutions such as the NHS to function.
Instead, I posit that we don’t require direct control over numbers to manage migration. Economists are almost unanimous that protectionism does more harm than good. I believe that the free market forces will bring down numbers naturally over time if we work to address the underlying issues driving them up. This was something briefly alluded to by the Prime Minister in his 2014 Party Conference speech.
Lowering the welfare cap and removing housing benefit for 18-21 year olds will raise £1bn to fund 3 million new apprenticeships with the bold aim of abolishing youth unemployment; encouraging young people into entry level jobs and developing their skills to move on to more rewarding careers. Moreover, university funding reforms allow more people from more diverse backgrounds to access higher education, with all the benefits that presents. By improving equality of opportunity, evolving people’s attitude to work and the acceptance of reliance on the state, the demand for foreign labour is reduced and net migration will necessarily come down.
“Because of difficult decisions we will make on welfare, we will deliver 3m apprenticeships by 2020. This is a crucial part of our long-term economic plan to secure a better future for Britain. It will help give us the skills to compete with the rest of the world. And it will mean more hope, more opportunity, and more security for our young people, helping them get on in life and make something of themselves. We have already doubled apprenticeships this parliament. We will finish the job in the next and end youth unemployment.”
David Cameron, CPC14
- The Living Wage is an excellent policy, but how will you stop it being a big pull factor for uncontrolled EU migration, given that it is far higher than the minimum wages in other EU countries?
The National Living Wage undermines the impact of wage deflation from cheap migrant labour. Following on from my previous point, it also provides a greater incentive for those unemployed outside of the apprenticeship age range to get into entry level jobs as opposed to relying on welfare, increasing the domestic supply and so again decreasing the demand for foreign labour.
Furthermore, at least in the short term, a higher minimum wage reduces the number of staff smaller companies can afford to hire, though this effect is lessened by lowering corporation tax. Together with our renegotiation limiting access to the welfare system for new migrants, one could just as easily argue that it will discourage low skilled immigration because of increased competition for jobs. I should also add that EU immigrants pay far more into the system through tax than they take out.
Longer term, higher pay results in happier staff, increasing productivity and therefore profits, eliminating the earlier pressure on companies. Coupled with lower taxes on individuals (especially raising the personal allowance), people will have more money to spend, reinvesting it into those businesses so everyone is ultimately better off.
- How will you prevent the European Court from interfering further in immigration, asylum, human rights, and all kinds of matters which have nothing to do with the so-called Single Market?
I won’t delve into whether we should pursue such a policy or not, but the Conservative manifesto commitment to replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights would likely address some of these problems. One should note, however, that the original drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights was led by the United Kingdom and British lawyers.
Despite this, we should be more willing to stand up to the Court when it makes erroneous decisions contrary to the public interest. One of my core arguments for remaining is that we can’t make changes from the outside, and although reform is infuriatingly slow, we should press on regardless to sculpt a world-leading Europe in everyone’s interest.
Additionally, I would like to query the phrasing of this question. Why the “so-called” single market? It is a tremendous transnational triumph, without which we could have collapsed into crushing economic depression. Before we joined the Common Market we were the ‘sick man of Europe’, but now we are by far the fastest growing and second largest European economy.
The question also infers that the EU is nothing more than a marketplace, but it has grown to be so much more. Just one example I hold close is in leading the world on countering climate change. While we can lead on our own, it is far more effective (though also more difficult to bring about) to unite as a continent and work together on such global issues.
- Why did you give up the UK veto on further moves towards a fiscal and political union?
This is the first I’ve heard of it, and a cursory Google search only revealed an article about the Facebook post in question and speculative stories from a year ago. For the sake of debate, however, I shall assume it to be true. I suppose such an act would be as a concession for our new treaty exemptions. Leave campaigners complain about the rest of Europe meddling in our affairs, so why should we ourselves have the right to block decisions only affecting other EU nations? It seems to reflect the English Votes for English Laws argument.
- How can you stop us from being dragged in, and from being made to pay?
We already had a special status within the EU, but the Prime Minister’s renegotiation provides token exemptions in written form from such concerns, so we aren’t going to be forced into “ever closer union” against our will. I think this referendum shows that we will always have the option to leave if necessary. For example: if François Hollande changes his name to Bonaparte, assassinates Angela Merkel, and the French take over the Union with a socialist superstate.
Addendum, 20th June 2016:
Andrew Bulman 
Excellent reply. I would add the counter question – why wouldn’t you want to integrate with the rest of Europe? Welcome the French, Poles and Slovenians, just like they welcome you.
LikeLiked by 1 person