Detoxifying European migration (again).
| Author | Pencheva, Denny |
The Labour Party has not won a general election since 2005. All subsequent election campaigns showed that the party cannot quite strike the right balance between the progressive liberalism that allegedly appeals to young(er) urban professionals, and the small-c conservativism that is, again allegedly, valued outside London and other major cities. The last general election campaign in December 2019 and Labour's then position on Brexit--securing a deal within three months and calling another referendum within six months of coming to power--has been criticised as ambiguous and alienating to both its working-class and middle-class supporters. Losing yet another general election has been a sobering reminder that the party is faced with substantial divisions over questions of Brexit and migration. For example, during the last general election, the legal rights and societal position of EU nationals in the UK barely featured in any of the political party manifestos. With about 6 million applications for settled and pre-settled status, why wasn't this a more prominent issue? (1)
In order to understand how we got here and, hopefully, how to move forward, it might be helpful to take a look back at how British mainstream media discussed EU migrants within the context of the Eastern EU enlargement. Revisiting media narratives is important because the increased inward mobility of Eastern EU nationals following the three rounds of Eastern EU enlargement exposed frictions both within the Labour Party and between the Labour Party and its constituents on questions related to migration, diversity and Brexit. Therefore, it is worth exploring the role perceptions of Eastern EU migrants have played in the ideological and policy development of the Labour Party: they were initially seen by some as an auxiliary tool for labour market and fiscal policy; concern about their numbers then became a factor in Blue Labour's social conservatism and then Brexit; and they now have a (potential) role as new constituents after Brexit. This article discusses these different perceptions thematically and is based on extensive mixed-method research into the British mainstream media's portrayal of Eastern EU migrants in 2006 and 2013, capturing media narratives about New Labour under Tony Blair, and the Coalition government under David Cameron.
From economic optimism to political anxiety
In many ways, New Labour's managed approach to migration could be described as revolutionary in that it sought to distance itself from the racialised approach that had defined the preceding period. It is also fair to describe it as technocratic in that it aimed at detoxifying migration debates by focusing on economic utility rather than national identity. The thinking behind this approach was that if you were non-disabled, ambitious, and wanting to work hard, Britain would welcome you. During the early and mid-20oos the UK's 'open doors' policy afforded the opportunity for large numbers of aspiring migrants from Eastern European countries that had newly joined the EU to move to the UK and take up employment, unburdened by visa requirements or employment restrictions--and free to change jobs if they wanted to. These EU migrants, unlike non-EU migrants, did not settle primarily in London but ventured far and wide across the UK, with high numbers residing in the East of England, the East Midlands, the Southwest and Scotland. (2)
Initially, Eastern Europeans were not deemed politically or socially problematic. Their phenotypical whiteness and cultural Europeanness helped them be less noticeable in non-cosmopolitan areas and facilitated their labour market integration. Eastern EU workers have been praised for their high levels of employability and strong work ethic, and empirical studies have shown that they have contributed more towards the public purse than they have taken out of it. (3) In fact, up until the mid-2000s, EU nationals were not quite seen as migrants. Rather, post-enlargement intra-EU mobility was viewed as a proxy for fiscal policy: quickly and cheaply plugging the gaps in the then-booming British economy whilst ensuring low inflation rates. The term 'migrants' was used loosely by media and political parties, and prior to the 2005 general election, both the Labour and Conservative manifestoes remained focused on controlling irregular and non-EU migration, as well as modernising the asylum system, rather than reducing the levels of intra-EU mobility. While both parties promised a referendum on Britain's EU membership, neither were of the opinion that European immigration should be restricted; indeed, both were keen to expand the borders of the European Union, knowing the free movement of labour would still apply.
...To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
