̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - referendum

Opinion: Uncertain, nostalgic, uncomfortable and bewildered: a portrait of the older Brexit backer

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:56:22 +0000

It has been suggested, as the EU referendum approaches, that younger voters are more likely to vote to remain than their older compatriots. A poll conducted in April showed 54% of over 55s back Brexit, while only 30% said they would vote to remain in the EU. It showed almost exactly the reverse among voters aged between 18 and 34. ̽��ֱ��35-54-year olds were more evenly split, with 38% saying they’d vote to remain and 42% saying they’d leave.

There are a host of possible reasons why older people might be more likely to vote to leave the European Union. They may be xenophobic or they may distrust an alien, distant political system. They may believe that Europe is not democratic. They may fear losing national sovereignty to Brussels.

But at the core of the older Brexiter’s thinking is a combination of nostalgia, uncertainty and bloody-mindedness. Their views are born of dissatisfaction with established practices and bewilderment over technological innovation and information overload.

̽��ֱ��world is too fast, too mobile and too globalised. Getting out of Europe would mark a return to more old-fashioned values, a half-remembered simpler life when politicians could be trusted, the media was restrained and Britain was sovereign.

There seems to be a nostalgic vision of a Great Britain, untrammelled by external pressures and domestic vicissitudes. We may know it’s wrong but, given the discomfort and mistrust of contemporary politics and the global economy, it seems as though it was somehow better then.

Older voters look back on a period of mass production, when unions were strong and governments championed their nations. Now they see a world based on competing technologies and transnational flows of investment that undermine governments’ ability to manage the economy. They see cross-border migration that seems to displace the familiar with the (often much needed) foreign carer, health-worker, construction worker or even footballer. All these forces have created hostility towards globalisation and that hostility easily finds a scapegoat in the EU.

Brexiters perhaps forget Suez in 1956 or the IMF intervention of 1976, when the hollowness of Britain’s control over sterling and its economy became only too obvious. They overlook the collapse of Britain’s heavy industry from the 1960s onwards or any winter of discontent and union strike action, or even the bloodiness of Britain’s withdrawal from South-East Asia or East Africa.

But to add to uncertainties about the new and hostility towards the “global” (read “foreign”) there is an element of bewilderment. Gone are “reliable” sources of authoritative information. Governments have lost whatever role they had as gatekeeper between the international and the domestic; domestically, the conventional media often seem to take a delight in being anti-government – regardless of that government’s political hue – for their own political or other reasons, creating suspicion of both.

And, if one can master it, there is the web – where an infinite number of websites offer up limitless information. But the provenance is often dubious and the multiplicity of sources is bewildering. One doesn’t know who to trust. It compounds that loss of deference towards authority and exacerbates uncertainties.

It is not surprising that so many feel they don’t know enough about the EU but also don’t know who to trust for objective information. Or, of course, they can’t be bothered to find out – after all Europe was relatively low on their agenda even if it’s temptingly easy to identify it with unrestrained immigration. And concern for their children’s and even grandchildren’s job prospects leads to the demand for British jobs undertaken by British people – even if they don’t seem to want to do them or don’t have the qualifications to do them.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction of all, though, is the desire to return to old certainties and thereby reduce risk, leading to support for the leap into the unknown. Older voters who support Brexit may have that dream, but it adds up to little more than a nightmare of uncertainties.

Geoffrey Edwards, Emeritus Reader in European Studies, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Geoffrey Edwards (Department of Politics and International Studies) discusses what motivates some people to support Brexit.

Hernán Piñera

Pedestrians

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Honeypot Britain? EU migrants’ benefits and the UK referendum

fpjl2 — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:04:03 +0000

A new Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� research project is gathering “robust empirical evidence” on the experience of EU migrant workers in the UK, exploring everything from hopes and expectations to how they find work and what use EU migrants make of benefits.

̽��ֱ��research is timely, as perceptions of EU migrants undercutting British workers or acting as ‘benefits tourists’ are fuelling much of the debate in the lead-up to June’s EU Referendum.

Some MPs are warning that Britain has become a “honeypot nation” with its social security system acting as a primary pull factor, leading to David Cameron’s negotiation of a so-called ‘emergency brake’ on benefits for EU migrants.

However, critics argue that the government have been consistently unable to provide any evidence that this is the case. For example, last week’s response to a Parliamentary question on the amount spent on benefits to EU migrants was simply: “the information is not available”.

̽��ֱ��EU Migrant Worker Project will aim to fill some of that knowledge gap. By combining interviews and focus groups with new methodologies for analysing available data, the research team hope to build an evidential base for EU migrants’ experiences of and attitudes toward Britain’s employment and social security systems.

̽��ֱ��project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is led by Professor Catherine Barnard and Dr Amy Ludlow from Cambridge’s Faculty of Law, and is launched today (Friday 26th February) with a roundtable discussion involving Labour former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and current Conservative MP Heidi Allen among others.

Professor Barnard said: “We hope to shed new light on the big question of how we adequately regulate migration within a socio-economically diverse EU and a post-financial crisis context. This question is central to Brexit and to the outcome of the UK's referendum on EU membership.”

Initial work has already been carried out, and a study published last October in the journal Industrial Law shows that EU migrants are using UK employment tribunals at much lower rates than would be expected relative to population size.

̽��ֱ��study, the only one of its kind, is based on analysis of three years of Employment Tribunal decisions alongside field interviews. It suggests that migrant workers from EU-8 nations use employment tribunals over 85% less than would be expected, given the size of the workforce they represent.

̽��ֱ��researchers identified various factors affecting migrants’ willingness and ability to use tribunals, including: lack of knowledge of their rights, reluctance to engage with the judicial system and, for those in the UK for a short time, a desire to maximise their earnings that is prioritised over complaints about mistreatment.

Under current EU law, EU migrants have rights to equal treatment in their terms and conditions of employment offered to domestic workers.

However, this initial study suggests that when it comes to employment conditions these may be rights that “exist more ‘on paper’ than in practice”, write the researchers.

“While we found good evidence to suggest that EU-8 workers were fairly treated by Employment Tribunal judges, navigating the system and accessing enough advice to understand the basic elements of the rights these workers are due is deeply problematic,” said Dr Ludlow.

“In interviews, we were told that largescale cuts to local authorities have had a negative impact on resources such as Citizen Advice Bureaus. These are important sources of guidance for workers who cannot afford legal advice, including workers from the EU.”

Professor Barnard said that the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees has meant that many workers are now priced out of claiming their employment rights. “If the Government is concerned about migrant workers’ undercutting employment terms and conditions and labour standards for domestic workers, our research suggests that resource needs to be directed to enabling migrant workers to enforce their rights, and to properly resourcing enforcement organisations such as the Gangmasters’ Licencing Authority.”

Unlike some other EU Member States, the UK did not impose restrictions on the admission of workers coming from the so-called EU-8 countries (such as Poland and the Czech Republic), apart from the requirement to register under the Workers’ Registration Scheme.

Over a million EU-8 workers, taking advantage of their free movement rights under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have arrived in the UK since 2004. They enjoy rights to equal treatment in any social and tax advantages offered to domestic workers – including the payment of child benefit and ‘in-work benefits’ such as tax credits.

Barnard and Ludlow plan to use the research design from their employment enforcement study and apply it to social security tribunals, to help give some sense of the number of EU migrants who claim benefits and the nature of the cases in which they are involved. They will also interview EU migrants and those that work closely with them, to explore migrants’ hopes, expectations and experiences.

I didn’t come to the UK just to work in any kind of job

Early interviews have highlighted the importance of online grass roots communities such as Facebook groups for migrant workers seeking advice, and that stopping child benefit for EU migrants may result in fewer family units making the transition to the UK, and an increase in younger, unattached men working in the UK, who are likely to integrate less permanently within their host community.

While some interviewees are preparing to leave Britain, citing a better quality of life in their home nation (“I'm not interested in staying in the UK just because it's possible”), the researchers also found migrant success stories.

One interviewee spoke of her determination to work in nursing: “I didn’t come to the UK just to work in any kind of job. Either I’m working my way towards nursing or, if that’s not possible, I’m going back.” After struggling through bar work and learning medical English on her days off, the woman is now a nurse in a local hospital.

“Many of the EU migrants we’ve talked to so far don’t understand our complex social security system; their only interest is in finding work,” said Dr Ludlow.

As well as one-to-one interviews and focus groups, the researchers will be making a documentary and providing migrant workers with disposable cameras. “It’s another way of trying to capture the migrant experience that offers an alternative insight to words on paper,” said Professor Barnard.

̽��ֱ��project is a two-way process, she says, with minute-long podcasts summarizing relevant aspects of the law, which will be available on EU Migrant Worker Project later this month.

“What we can offer the migrant community in return is quite detailed knowledge of the law and their rights and how to enforce those rights, both to claim employment rights but also social security benefits.”

Added Dr Ludlow: “Accusations that the UK has become a ‘honeypot nation’ has become a key issue in the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU.

“By gathering empirical evidence about EU migrants' experiences of navigating the labour market and social security system in the UK, we hope to increase our understanding of EU and domestic law as it works in practice and to inform public opinion in anticipation of the referendum on 23 June and beyond.”

If you are interested in learning more about Professor Barnard and Dr Ludlow’s work please email euworker@hermes.cam.ac.uk, tweet @eumigranworker, or contact them on their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/eu.migrantworker/. Their project website is: www.eumigrantworker.law.cam.ac.uk.

Ahead of Britain’s EU referendum, research will explore the experiences of EU migrants working in the UK, and attitudes to employment and social security – for which there is little empirical evidence, despite intense political rhetoric. An initial study suggests workers from the EU are significantly under-represented in employment tribunals.

Accusations that the UK has become a ‘honeypot nation’ has become a key issue in the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU

Amy Ludlow

Kip Loades

EU migrant workers

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Why the latest EU referendum question is worse than the original

cjb250 — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:52:50 +0000

̽��ֱ��meaning of ̽��ֱ��Clash song Should I Stay or Should I Go is probably sufficiently clear for most people who listen to it. Getting a referendum question right is a more complex affair. ̽��ֱ��British Electoral Commission has shown us as much by advising that the wording of the question for the forthcoming vote on the UK’s membership of the EU should be changed.

̽��ֱ��Council of Europe code of practice on referendums suggests referendum questions should avoid leading the voter to one choice or another. And the Electoral Commission is obliged to give its view on the wording of referendum questions in the UK. But I fear the commission has made matters worse in its quest for neutrality in this case.

As published, the EU Referendum Bill stated that the referendum question would be “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”. Voters would be given a simple Yes/No choice on the ballot to answer that question.

This was actually the wording originally proposed by the Electoral Commission in 2013.

But after testing this wording, the commission has expressed concern that it might create a bias towards a “Yes” answer. It also wondered whether an alternative question might better grasp the complexities involved in making a choice about the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

It sought to refine the question around two alternative statements rather than a question with a simple Yes/No answer. It has now proposed changing the question to: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Voters will be asked to select either “remain a member of the European Union” or “leave the European Union”. It has been widely reported that David Cameron has accepted this new wording.

Cameron has promised to hold the election before the end of 2017. www.shutterstock.com

Are you really leaving?

̽��ֱ��concept of “remaining” in the EU is reasonably clear. ̽��ֱ��problem with this new formulation lies in what is actually meant by “leave the European Union”.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union – the provision governing the exit of a member state – uses the term “withdraw” and it might be better to use this term rather than a less precise “leave”.

More importantly, a “withdrawal” from the EU must be a negotiated process that ends in an agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state. That agreement will govern the future relationship between the EU and its former member and is likely to result in EU rules continuing to apply to the withdrawing state in areas like access to the European single market.

If by selecting “leave the EU” a voter believed that they were voting for the UK to have a clean break with the EU, they may well feel disappointed with the outcome. ̽��ֱ��UK may have ceased to be a member of the EU but without having left the EU in any meaningful sense. To turn from ̽��ֱ��Clash to ̽��ֱ��Eagles, like Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can never really “leave”.

̽��ֱ��serious point is that if a Yes/No question risks bias, this new iteration of the question only introduces a different problem: namely that the alternative statements do not quite depict the consequences that they purport to capture.

Whatever the problems of a polarising binary Yes/No question, they are not solved by giving voters a choice between one relatively clear answer – remain a member of the EU – and one wholly ambiguous response – leave the EU.

A straight question?

There remains quite a lot of merit in the original proposal to ask electors to vote Yes/No on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union.

This at least reflects a legal reality. ̽��ֱ��UK is currently a member of the EU and therefore the choice is whether or not that status should continue. It avoids speculation about what the alternative to being a member might entail. Though of course, for some, the problem is the status quo of EU membership and a question which apparently reflects that is itself an impediment to change.

An issue that has not been discussed is whether the wording of the question should really strive towards a kind of agnostic neutrality or whether it should seek to reflect political realities by starting with the world as it is now – that the UK is a member of the EU – and then ask voters whether that should change. This would imply not a bias but a certain onus on those who wish to seek change.

̽��ֱ��haste with which David Cameron has endorsed the Electoral Commission’s proposal has pre-empted a debate on the wording of the referendum question and there is still time for further change. Amendments to the EU Referendum Bill can be made in the House of Commons at the Report Stage, scheduled for September 7. This will give an opportunity for further reflection on the wisdom of this proposed change. And that reflection is greatly needed.

This article also appears on the UK in a Changing Europe website

Kenneth Armstrong is Professor of European Law and Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies at ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

David Cameron has been widely reported to have agreed to amend the wording on the forthcoming referendum about the UK's position in the EU. But the new wording may not be any better, writes Professor Kenneth Armstrong, Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies.

evan p. cordes

Make No Distinctions

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution