Labour is panicking over immigration.  We have lost our sense of perspective.  The so-called moves to the Right on the Continent are taking their toll.  UK politicians, including Government Ministers, strive to be seen as "tough on immigration", and that means voicing a degree of intolerance of foreigners.  On immigration, the hawks vastly outnumber the doves. 

Leaks from Downing Street about using the Royal Navy to intercept bogus asylum-seekers in the Mediterranean are sadly believable, if essentially absurd.  The barmy Blunkett Plan to build a new generation of super detention centres (which do not legally detain at all, you understand) is taken seriously.  Under electoral pressure, Labour is losing perspective.

This panic is demeaning, a failure of political imagination.  Several commentators this Sunday, including Andrew Rawnsley in  The Observer, have pilloried on the Government'a populist reaction.  And David Blunkett is praised by Lord Tebbitt - these are dark days.  By seeking electoral approval for their "toughness on immigration", our leaders promote internal ethnic tensions.  And the reduce the "political space" available for the expression of decent, balanced, humane views of the process.

The right course for Labour is to embark straight away on a diplomatic campaign for an international, humane, framework capable of working for the modern world as a whole.  There is no point in striving for a mere "European" solution: Fortress Europe would be no better than Fortress Britain.  Only a humane, UN-wide solution will do. 

We should gather our composure, and start thinking.  I suggest our analysis should run like this.

First:  Acknowledge that recent election results, both on here and on the Continent, confirm that disruptive migration is considered by the electorate to be a major problem - even though the statistics tell a different story.  Such apprehensions should not be ignored or minimised.  And it is wrong to categorise a resentment of immigration as a swing "to the Right": it is a common perception, across much of the electorate (and among Labour Party members, as among others).  It is that perception which must be addressed, as must the underlying migratory pressures.

Second: a modern society must be statistically equipped to put population-change into perspective, with reliable up-to-date data.  This argues for the abandonment of the cumbersome full-enumeration ten-year Census (operated since 1801, long before the emergence of modern statistical reasoning) and the introduction of an annual 10% Sample Survey, which would be equally authoritative for many purposes. With a Census Date of (say) 1 March, it should be possible to have basic data available by 1 October in each year.  Economical solutions should be available, by combining this Survey with other regular investigations. The coming debate must develop a numerical dimension, and the numbers must be reliable.

Third:  UN multilateral treaty agreement should be sought upon a Common Migratory Reception Rate, namely a percentage of each State's preceding year's population which it would be reasonable for that State to accept within the ensuing year.  This would relate to overall immigration, not merely to the accommodation of political refugees, "asylum seekers". The UN should seek agreement upon a common percentage (e.g. one-half of one percent per annum) which every State would be committed by treaty to accept.  This would ensure that the electorate of each State could rely on the other States' accepting a common reception commitment.  This would reduce internal tensions, and provide a clear framework for the long-term international management of migration.

Fourth: The UN (through the UN High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR) should be given responsibility for making all asylum adjudications, by way of a new system of international tribunals.  This would remove from each signatory State the responsibility for making its own separate adjudications.  And it would be for the UNHCR to "place" confirmed asylum-seekers  with signatory States, within the limits of their CMRR, and to ensure the honourable repatriation of unsuccessful applicants.

Such an international framework would reduce the threat of ethnic conflict, and minimise internal ethnic tensions. These reforms would have to be combined with the revision of rights-of-abode and the laws of full citizenship.  That is an even broader issue, which I will return.

Your thoughts?
Drop me a line > < Top

Last week's public debate prompted his ringing call for full drug legalisation Why a high society is a free society - do read it, it makes compelling reasoning.  With drugs, as with immigration, our political leaders are plainly scared to lead.  And that throws into high relief the courage of the ten  MPs who have committed themselves to full legalisation, by signing the Angel Declaration.  You can check out the full list, and do the same yourself, by signing on-line at Angel Declaration  

Your thoughts?
Drop me a line > < Top 

The reasoning is simple.  What is the single most important objective of the trading corporation?  To trade.  What is the best sanction, to impose upon a trading corporation?  To deny it the opportunity to trade.  How is that best done?  By denying it access to entire market systems, namely markets falling physically within the jurisdiction of a nation state.

Forms of market denial are already practised. The Port of Baltimore, fearful of oil pollution, already forbids entry to tankers without double-hulls.  This week the US Senate will amend the conditions of duty-free access to the US market for third-world products, to require an assurance that no employment discrimination has been practised, in the production of the imported goods. 

My forecast is that, in spite of the trends within the World Trade Organisation, Governments will in future years develop market denial as a means of countering the success of rogue corporations, those lacking transparency and guilty of internal exploitation.  As we move towards a more managed world, and more managed societies (itself a major political theme, with huge constitutional implications) then market denial, even on a single corporation basis, will become more and more attractive, as a political device.  Watch this space.