Is there an alternative Motive to making the 3 Million EU Citizens a Brexit Bargaining Chip?

Pre-referendum the position on the 3 million EU citizens was clear. Whatever the outcome the rights of those already resident in the UK will be protected. A joint statement made on June 1^st, 2016 signed by Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and Gisela Stuart on the Vote Leave webpage states:

“…there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.”

Fast forward two months and suddenly the rights of the EU citizens ended up being negotiation capital. Even during the race for nomination for the Prime Minister position contenders Andrea Leadsom and Steve Crabb distanced themselves from using the 3 million EU citizens as “negotiation chips”.  They did not win the race and the UK ended up with a former Home Office minister as Prime Minister - a person whose record on the treatment of immigrants is terrible – creating an Immigration Act designed in her words “to create a hostile environment” for illegal migrants by a package of measures including requiring landlords to check on the immigration status of all prospective tenants culminating in the infamous Operation Vaken “Go Home” vans touring immigrant communities.

Since the referendum the Prime Minister has changed the line of the Leave Campaign in regards to the EU citizens from guaranteed no change in rights to demanding a reciprocal agreement with the EU on UK citizens in the EU. Her argument is that British citizens in the EU need protecting too. Unfortunately, she did not listen to the very people she claims to protect. Allmajor British Expat organisations have been pleading with the government to secure the rights of EU citizens in the UK now as they worry that making people negotiation capital will cost goodwill and threatens their own position.

Thus, it raises the question what is the main driver behind the Prime Minister’s stance of using people as Bargaining Chip if it is neither what all leave campaigns had promised before nor what the Britons in the EU want. Beside the 180 degree turn on the guarantee for EU citizens there has been a shift in language within the government benches that is far more worrying. Rather than talking about rights ministers are now solely talking about the right to remain ensuring the public that no one would be deported. Something, no matter what the negotiation outcome, that would be impossible even after Brexit under several international laws anyway. The government knows that British companies and public services are highly dependent on the economically active immigration population.

Therefore, if making EU citizens negotiation capital is neither in the interest of Britons in the EU nor the British economy why is the government choosing to do so. The only conclusion can be found in the slightly changed rhetoric of the government ministers towards the economic value and cost of immigrants.  On January 26^th, 2017 Iain Duncan Smith made the government position on immigrants very clear by classifying immigrants into high value/low volume and low value/high volume and thus, reducing people to no more than their economic value. Combining that with the ongoing focus on non-deportation omitting any other rights but the right to stay the government line is becoming more transparent. EU citizens are welcome as long as they aid the British economy but aren’t welcome as soon as they become a burden.

By not guaranteeing all rights now the Prime Minister has opened up the possibility of cutting off the 3 million EU citizens from the NHS, social security system and possibly the UK state pension should the negotiations with the EU go sour. Something every single one of the 3 million should be afraid of. There will be no deportation orders needed when the UK government simply stops looking after those who fall ill, become disabled or go into retirement. They will have to leave voluntarily.

EU Citizens Bargaining Chip Stance is damaging Tory Party Reputation

On Monday the House of Commons have voted down the House of Lords amendment to the Article 50 Bill  that could have protected the rights of the three million EU citizens in the UK, who came to this country in good faith. A great opportunity was missed to show compassion and decency.

Despite the very compelling reasons to either guarantee the rights outside the bill or to follow the recommendation of the House of Lords and to add the protection of EU citizen rights into law now the Tory party together with the DUP have chosen to not pursue this.

Humanity

Throwing humans on the negotiation table alongside cars from Sunderland and lettuce from Spain is  morally indefensible.  However it is dressed up it dehumanises people. The three million EU citizens are parents, spouses, neighbours and colleagues to British citizens. They have come to live here in good faith and have built their lives in the UK. This has the potential of tearing UK/EU families apart and thus, hurting nobody else but British children and spouses.

Protecting UK Expats

Reciprocity could be an attractive idea if you are happy to use all three million EU citizens in the UK and the 1.2 million British citizens in the EU as negotiation capital.The Government argued that doing so will protect the interests of British expats in Europe. Unfortunately, they did not listen to the very people they claim to protect. All major British Expat organisations across Europe were asking the British government to grant unilateral guarantees for EU citizens now. They know that the goodwill created by the British gesture carries further than confrontation at the negotiation table.

"We also believe that it is damaging to the UK’s reputation for UK citizens living in Europe and EU citizens in the UK to be treated as negotiating currency and that it will have a negative effect on the forthcoming negotiations, including for the position of UK citizens in Europe"

Timing

The cross party Brexit committee has released its report on EU citizens and they unanimously called on the Government to guarantee our rights unilaterally now. This call is backed by all major British Expat organisations.

Any delay may have discriminatory consequences.Banks have already started to change their risk profiling for long term loan applications (e.g. mortgages) and employers becoming reluctant to employ EU citizens due to the unclear immigration status. This will only increase over the next two years of negotiations with no guarantee given now.

No negotiation leverage

The flaw of using people as 'negotiation capital' (a phrase coined by Robert Goodwill) has been laid bare quite clearly by Tory MP Peter Bone on BBC Newsnight on March 1st, 2017. When questioned if rights of EU citizens would be taken away should negotiations on issues, such as Gibraltar, go sour he quite clearly stated that would not be the case. It is nonsensical to put three million people through two years of unnecessary uncertainty if there is no leverage gained.

Nature of the bill

Adding a guarantee of EU citizens rights to the bill would have not changed the nature of the bill. The argument that such guarantee would change the bill’s sole purpose to allow the Prime Minister triggering Article 50 is nonsensical.

Goodwill

The next two years will centre on very hard fought negotiations with the EU. The treatment of their citizens by the UK government is not going unnoticed by the EU27. The Prime Minister’s objectives for Brexit can only be achieved through goodwill on both sides of the table. She has the chance to show this now, as she has stated that she wants to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK 'as early as possible'. Nobody will prevent her from doing so right now.

Once Theresa May positively set out that she wants to rid the Conservative Party of the ‘nasty party’ image but even the much loathed Nigel Farage calls for the guarantee of EU citizens rights being secured now on LBC following the House of Lords amendment vote. Where does that leave the Tory party’s public image? 

Making people bargaining chips, dehumanising them, will tarnish the party's reputation. The plight of the three million EU citizens might feel irrelevant to the Tory party as they are excluded from the general election but they are family, friends and colleagues. Their treatment will not go unnoticed with the electorate. Their stories will turn many UK voters off the Tory party especially when the flaws of the negotiation capital argument become clearer over the next two years.

1.8 million EU citizens’ rights in the UK already secured, right?

On the 1st of February Labour MP Gisela Stuart, German born and one of the strongest Brexit supporters, stood in the House of Commons stating that the rights of 1.8 million of the estimated three million EU citizens in the UK are already secured. A message, trivialising the plight of the three million EU citizens, often repeated by Brexit supporters on the government and opposition benches.

This claim is not true though. Current refusal rates for permanent residence cards, the piece of paper confirming the already acquired residence rights, stands at 29%. Current estimation is that between 600 and 800 thousand of the 1.8 million will be turned down despite being in the country for five or more years. Many have even chosen not to apply at all as they know that they will not be able to provide the burden of proof.

Reasons for refusal could include:

• Part of the five years being student
• Work placement outside the UK longer than 450 days
• Sabbatical taken to travel the world
• Being a stay at home parent
• Unable to work due to disability
• Periods of unemployment longer than three months
• Living in shared accommodation and thus unable to provide rental agreement or utility bills

This list is by no means exhaustive. It is a list of situations though shared by British and EU citizens alike. The big difference is that for EU citizens these normal life moments could mean being cut off the British social system, the NHS and potentially have implications on future pension entitlements post Brexit.

The three million EU citizens have come here in good faith. They have built their lives. They have become family, friends and colleagues. Currently they are protected by EU law but the government's decision to make them Bargaining Chips for the EU negotiations has unsettled the community greatly. Many live in anxiety worried how the negotiation outcome will affect their family and employment post Brexit.

The government had the opportunity to relieve the anxieties of the EU citizens but, despite pleas from both sides of the Brexit debate, has decided to prolong the period of uncertainty until the Great Repeal Bill. 

The future of the three million, despite reassuring words for the British electorate from politicians like Gisela Stuart, is not secured and now fully in the hands of the negotiation skills of Theresa May and David Davis. Very uncertain and worrying times ahead indeed.

The Treatment of the Three Million EU Citizens symptomatic of future Negotiations with the EU

The three million EU citizens’ rights were the first test of Theresa May’s negotiation stance with the EU and it does not look promising for future negotiations.

In her Lancaster House speech on the 17^th of January Theresa May has laid out her future vision of the UK/EU relationship. She used many warm words towards the EU pointing out both common interests and history. Peel away the warm words though and her message was a lot more menacing and transparent in the way she intends to deal with the EU.

When laying out the UK’s reason to leave the EU she was very clear on blaming the EU for being ‘inflexible’ and having ‘a vice-like grip on policies’. These were cleverly crafted phrases setting out her long term negotiating strategy with the EU. The terms were deliberately chosen to be referred back to whenever negotiations are not going the way the Government is hoping.

Rather than being honest and admitting that the 17.1 million people who voted for the UK’s exit have placed the country into a difficult negotiation position potentially forcing the EU into a hard stance to protect its own interests, Theresa May, with one speech, has defined the only scapegoat the electorate should be looking at. When the Government fails to achieve one of its 12 point objectives the blame is not sought at home but laid with the ‘inflexible’ EU holding on to policies with a ‘vice-like grip’.

The negotiations on the three million EU citizens in the UK was the first and so far only test of Theresa May’s stance towards the EU. Despite all sides of the Brexit debate from the LibDems, Open Britain, British Expats to Leave.EU and even Nigel Farage calling for unilateral guarantee of EU citizens’ rights before triggering Article 50, the Prime Minister chose the route of getting a reciprocal agreement with the EU instead.

This approach was always doomed to fail for two reasons. Firstly, any negotiation with the EU is a lengthy process in which 27 member states have to be consulted and the rights of EU citizens has both major legal and monetary implications far too complex to be agreed within the short timeframe. Secondly, more importantly even, she purposefully broke protocol. She tried to negotiate before there was anything to negotiate. Thus, the only reason for pursuing this futile undertaking had to be scoring political anti-EU points by laying blame at the Commission and Angela Merkel.

In the marathon of negotiations this was the first real life test and Theresa May, against all sensible advice, chose to openly blame the EU for the situation caused by the UK and the 17.1 million people who voted for Brexit. The three million EU citizens in the UK and the 1.2 million Brits in the EU are the first victims of the blame game, supported by 40 years of unopposed anti-EU rhetoric of the Red Tops, laid out so clearly in her Lancaster House speech. The next two years of negotiations will show how many more of her failures will be blamed on the EU – the groundwork has definitely been laid and it seems the electorate is swallowing it.