Selecting people for visas

Tweet

I’ve long thought that the whole idea of the “Commonwealth of Nations” is a concept which is outdated now, and was probably outdated at the time that it was conceived.  It has always seemed like an attempt to somehow cling on to the imperial past, pretending from the UK perspective that those countries conquered, ruled, and exploited by one European power in particular must, as a result of that process, look up in awe to the ‘motherland’, whilst hoping, from the other perspective, for some sort of favourable treatment from the former colonists.

But ‘breaking ties with the commonwealth’ was one of the issues in the 1975 referendum on membership of the EEC, so it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that renewing and strengthening those ties would be an issue arising in the wake of the 2016 referendum, particularly for those with a yearning to dwell in the past.  It is in that context that 45 Tory MPs wrote to the Home Secretary just under a fortnight ago, advocating changes to visa rules for Commonwealth citizens.  The issue, it seems, is to be debated in parliament shortly.  (The report suggests 26^th, but as far as I’m aware, parliament doesn’t hold debates on Sundays.)

As someone who supports the idea of free movement of people in principle, I welcome any moves to ease restrictions (although it would be better if the government would also give at least a passing thought to preparing for the consequences).  But restricting freedom of movement from Europe whilst loosening controls on those further afield seems bizarre to me.  Perhaps it doesn’t look the same to those who view the imperial past through rose-tinted spectacles.

I don’t know how broadly popular the idea of giving priority to the commonwealth will be; I’m afraid that I rather suspect that it depends on what image the word conjures up.  For me, it is of a widely dispersed territory most of the population of which lives in Africa or the sub-continent of India.  I wonder, though, whether for many the image is more one of ‘kith-and-kin’ in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.  I’ll admit find it hard to believe that many of those who voted in the referendum thinking that they were going to put a stop to movement of people from the rest of the EU would really be delighted to see them replaced by more people from India or Pakistan.  Not for the first time, it suggests that immigration was merely an issue seized upon to achieve a result rather than a real concern for those leading the campaign.

Big boats for rich people

Tweet

It has seemed from the outset that many of those arguing for Brexit were harking back to what they see as the ‘good old days’; a time when Britannia ruled the waves, natives elsewhere were suitably deferential, and if all else failed, then a gunboat or two could be deployed. 

But it’s hard to think of a better example of that sort of thinking than this story about those who are seeking, in a very literal sense, to get Britannia back on the waves.  The call for the UK to either recommission the royal yacht, or else commission a new one, has it all.  Symbolism of global Britain and a good dose of nostalgia; these are key elements of the Brexit mindset.  The USP for this little proposal is clear – ‘do business with us: we can’t offer you access to the single market, but we can offer you a chance to sign the contract on a very big yacht and maybe even meet one of our royals’.  That obviously trumps the mere economics of any deal, doesn’t it?

It will be costly, but not to worry; one of the instigators of the scheme doesn’t want the taxpayer to fund it, oh no.  Instead, an appeal will be launched for donations from across the Commonwealth (another throwback to the imperial past) from people who will be only too happy to contribute large sums to provide a new boat for one of the UK’s richest families.  Can’t you just feel the genuflection oozing through the population as we all joyously contribute our few penn’orth as well?

These people really do dwell in the past, a place which has rightly been called ‘another country’.  They can happily spout the utterly meaningless phrase that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ without understanding the rather more meaningful statement that ‘the past is in the past’.

Conflicting facts

Tweet

According to those who support leaving the European Union:

·         the UK is an important market for the other EU countries, so it is in their interest to allow continued full access to the single market,

·         leaving the EU will allow the UK government to give state aid to industries such as steel, which they cannot do currently under EU rules,

·         the UK can negotiate a free trade deal with China without having to consider the interests of 27 other EU members, and

·         the UK can impose tariffs on products, such as steel, which are being dumped at less than cost price by our competitors.

I don’t disagree with any of those statements in principle; they are all ‘true’ as far as they go.  The question, though, is whether and to what extent they can all be true in practice at the same time.  It appears that many of the Brexiters seriously believe that they can, but it looks like a highly unlikely proposition to me.  For instance, why on earth would the 27 remaining member states allow a free market with another state which was providing state subsidies to its industries in order for them to compete on price?  It would be self-destructive for them to do so.

But that unshakeable belief that ‘the world will come to us and deal with us on our terms’ is at the very heart of the problem; there is an exceptionalism which has dogged the UK’s membership of the EU from the outset – always seeking opt-outs and exclusions; rebates and special terms.  That separateness and superiority which characterises the UK’s approach to the world stage probably stems from an unwillingness to let go of the imperial past.  It’s a perspective which was certainly reflected in some of the rhetoric about being a ‘great trading nation’ and looking again to the Commonwealth.

Perhaps the shock of Brexit will finally bring a healthy dose of reality about the UK’s place in the world.

An idea whose time has gone

Tweet The spat between Cameron and the President of Sri Lanka drew more attention to the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government than it would normally merit.  Such attention would normally be more focused on the visit by the hereditary head (or in this case deputy head) of the ex-colonial power.  For what it’s worth (and despite my instinctive understanding of the reaction of the President to being lectured by former colonialists), on the substantive issue of an enquiry into alleged war crimes, I’m with Cameron.  (Although he seems to have taken his time about noticing the issue.)

That isn’t the subject of this post, however.  What exactly is the Commonwealth for?  It’s a curious organisation, which has attempted to redefine itself a few times over the decades to become more modern and relevant; but at root, it is about maintaining links between the UK and its former colonies.  As the charter puts it, it’s for those countries which have “a shared inheritance in language, culture and the rule of law”, and are “bound together by shared history and tradition”. That would be the shared experience of conquest and an imposed language, in most cases.

Two of the main criteria for membership are acceptance of the monarch of the UK (or rather the “monarch of the Commonwealth realms” as they would prefer to put it, using a formula which allows even republics to accept a residual role for the monarch), and the use of the English language.  It’s open to countries which were part of the Empire or which have some sort of constitutional relationship with countries which were part of the Empire (colonies of colonies, and dependencies of dependencies).  This is a rule which may only be waived in exceptional circumstances – in the interests, presumably, of apparent non-exclusiveness.

From the point of view of the London establishment, the attraction of an organisation which allows them to live in the past and pretend that they still have some sort of empire, dispensing their largesse (in terms of aid and trade) more favourably to former colonies than to others is perhaps understandable.  It also gives the Windsors opportunities to visit exotic places (and in the case of one of them, insult the local natives).

From the point of view of the other members, it’s either the fact that Her Maj is still their head of state, or else the expectation of favourable terms for aid and trade that encourages them to see some value in the organisation.  But in the twenty-first century, is there really still an argument for retaining a pretend empire like this?  Whether it’s dreams of the past, or even possibly a feeling of guilt for past misdemeanours, is there really any justification for differentiating amongst those who need aid and trade to favour those who ‘we’ used to rule?

It’s an idea whose time has long gone; it belongs, like the empire, to the past.  It may be an academic question though.  Accepting Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth for as long as she lives is comparatively easy; she was, after all, on the throne when most of the members gained their independence.  I somehow doubt that the idea of a hereditary head of the organisation will survive the death of the current monarch.