Author Archives: markdowe1

Britain, Government, Immigration, Politics, Society

Labour’s immigration plan: language not fit for purpose

BRITAIN

IMMIGRATION policy is an important plank of any government, and the one led by Sir Keir Starmer is no exception. Laws are required to establish the terms under which migration to the UK is allowed, and to deal with the range of complexities surrounding irregular arrivals. But the decision to publish an immigration white paper (which allows for consultation) a week after Reform UK made significant gains in local elections, where Nigel Farage is riding high in national polls, is hard to defend. Rather than defusing public concerns, the PM risks playing into the hard right’s hands – and directly undermining the community cohesion he says he wants to protect.

Some of the proposed measures are reasonable. Others are not. Visa rules are complicated and ministers have identified real concerns about the way the system works. But the timing and language, particularly Sir Keir’s references to an “island of strangers” and forces “pulling our country apart”, were dreadful choices. The danger is that such rhetoric ends up reinforcing divisions and xenophobia.

Labour’s target is the opposition’s record. Starmer was right to assert that the policies of the Conservatives were a cynical disgrace. Legal migration rose from 224,000 in 2019 to a staggering level of 906,000 in 2023. Voters who were entitled to think they had opted for reduced inward migration, both in the Brexit referendum and by electing a prime minister, Boris Johnson, who vowed to “take back control” of borders, instead got a free-market experiment. While the Tories ramped up their inhumane Rwanda scheme as a distraction, employers intensified overseas recruitment as skill thresholds were lowered.

In manufacturing, transport, and engineering, the subsequent increase in foreign employees is correlated with a decline in the UK workforce and apprenticeships. The failure of this laissez-faire approach to the economy has not been limited to jobs. Living standards have stagnated, with lower rates of growth than in the eurozone and US. The Labour government is right that employers should invest in people here, as well as scouting in other countries for highly skilled workers. If it is well run, the new Labour Market Evidence Group could play a positive role in a more industrially activist government. It is good to signal a looser approach to refugees working, and reasonable to expect migrant workers’ dependants to learn English. Councils should support this.

However, the white paper, in both tone and substance, is distinctly illiberal. It uses the language of “fairness”, “integration”, and “public confidence”. And yet, its core proposals represent a consolidation of executive power, a curtailment of individual rights, and a weakening of judicial independence. These are not reforms – they are regressions.

The pledge to deport more foreign criminals speaks volumes of tabloid politics. Granting counter-terrorism-style powers to the Border Force risks stoking, not easing, fear. Cancelling social care visas on the grounds of “abuse” threatens a sector already on the brink. Raising income thresholds for those with dependants penalises lower-paid workers. And while student visas are in need of review, the real issue is the crisis in underfunding of higher education – not the students themselves.

Starmer’s anger about the Tories’ track record is justified. It harms democracy, and has helped opportunists like Nigel Farage, when parties tell voters one thing while doing another. But past mistakes do not justify present ones. Migrants have been and will remain a vital part of the UK’s labour force and student bodies. Positives that require to be reinforced loud and clear.

Standard
Europe, European Commission, Government, Politics, Society, Technology, United States

The EU must lay down the law on big tech

DIGITAL MARKETS

Intro: Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to bully its way to the deregulation of US digital giants. In the interests of EU citizens, these attempts must be resisted

HENNA VIRKKUNEN, the European Union’s most senior official on digital policy, has fired a broadside when she said: “We are very committed to our rules when it comes to the digital world”. Such sentiments bring with it the near certainty of a future confrontation with Elon Musk. Ms Virkkunen , who is the EU vice-president responsible for tech sovereignty, also added that: “We want to make sure that our digital environment … is fair and it’s safe and it’s also democratic.”

In recent days, these words were followed by deeds. In the first sanctions handed down since the establishment of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the European Commission fined Apple Euros500m and Meta Euros200m, after finding them guilty of unfair business practices that exploited their entrenched online “gatekeeper” position. Apple, for example, was judged to have unfairly restricted developers from distributing apps outside its own App Store, where it takes a cut from sales.

Are we to perceive these fines as being a form of tough action or nothing more than tokenism? It is safe to say these fines will not overly concern either company’s accountants. Apple’s revenue last year was Euros344bn. There are also indications that, in other areas, Brussels may be seeking to dial down tensions with the US tech giants as it seeks to avoid a full-on trade war with Washington.

A separate investigation into X (formerly Twitter) under the auspices of the Digital Services Act – which deals with content moderation – found it in preliminary breach of EU rules, following Mr Musk’s takeover in 2022. No fine has yet been issued. Meanwhile there are growing fears that EU regulations on artificial intelligence, intended to reduce the risk of disinformation and political manipulation, are in danger of being diluted under pressure from the Trump administration.

Given the current volatility of transatlantic relations, it is understandable that a degree of cautious restraint is needed. But US bullying of Brussels over its regulation of big tech on behalf of EU citizens must be robustly resisted. Trump’s senior adviser for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro, has mischaracterised European digital regulation as a non-tariff barrier and form of “lawfare” against American companies. The reality, though, is more mundane: US market dominance means its tech giants will inevitably be the most affected by efforts to govern a space that is now part of the architecture of everyday life.

That task, vital to maintaining a healthy public sphere, should be kept distinct from fraught trade negotiations with the White House. Easier said than done perhaps, given the US President’s all-embracing mercantilism. Nonetheless, EU politicians – and British ones – must not be intimidated into an ill-judged deregulatory path with potentially damaging implications for democracy.

These fines might have been financially small given the size of the revenues they generate but they do at least represent a necessary statement of intent. Alongside its investigation into X, the commission has inquiries ongoing into TikTok and Meta, also relating to content moderation. MEPs are now calling for those too to be pushed to a conclusion.

This may be the acid test. The US vice-president, JD Vance, has made it clear that the White House intends to act as the political wing of US big tech, and has compared European attempts to combat online disinformation and illegal content to Soviet-era censorship. Ms Verkkunen should remain adamant and stick to her guns – and ignore the flak flying from Washington.

Standard
Education, Politics, United States

The US administration’s attack on universities is an affront to democracy

AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

IN the authoritarian playbook, enfeebling universities is an early move in the state seizing control. It has been studied eagerly by the likes of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Authoritarians and one-party states centrally target universities with the aim of restricting dissent. There are instances now, too, where scholars of influential universities in America, such as Yale, are leaving the US for other countries such as Canada because of the political climate and the battle that is escalating over higher education.

It is not merely because universities are often bastions of liberal attitudes and hotbeds for protest. They also constitute one of the critical institutions of civil society; they are a bulwark of democracy. The Trump administration is taking on judges, lawyers, NGOs, and the media: it would be highly surprising if universities were not on the list. They embody the importance of knowledge, rationality, and independent thought.

The evidence is now clear to see. In a typically brazen move, Donald Trump has accused Harvard of being a threat to democracy, and has become one of his administration’s top targets. The US government is attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and says it is tackling the failure of universities to root out antisemitism – a claim that is widely challenged. While most Trump supporters are unlikely to take issue with cutting billions of dollars of public spending on wealthy elite institutions, it has to be recognised that much of that money goes to scientific and medical research that enriches the US as a nation and benefits vast numbers of people who have never ventured near an Ivy League university.

The administration’s shocking demands of Harvard include federal oversight of admissions, the dismantling of diversity programmes, the curtailment to recruitment of international students “hostile to American values”, and the compelled hiring of “viewpoint diverse” staff.

Harvard has commendably chosen to fight back. Its president, Alan Garber, insists the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. It is suing the government over the freeze on $2.2bn in federal funding, part of a threat to withhold $9bn. That is encouraging others to speak out. More than 150 university presidents have signed a joint letter denouncing “unprecedented government overreach and political interference”.

Many have pointed out that the world’s richest university can afford to stand firm thanks to its unrivalled $53bn endowment and sympathetic billionaire alumni. Nonetheless, that same prestige and power is what has made it the primary target: force it to fold, and weaker institutions will follow. It’s worth noting that Harvard toughened its position after faculty, students, and alumni pushed hard for it to do so, warning that concessions would only encourage the administration. Columbia acquiesced to an extraordinary list of demands but some $400m of withheld funding has yet to be restored, and the administration is reportedly seeking to extend control over the university.

Troubling, because whatever comes of Harvard’s lawsuit, this is an administration that has already chosen to ignore court rulings. It may step up its assault, by revoking charitable status and clamping down on international students. Still, Harvard is fighting back not just because it can, but because it must. In doing so, it is defending not only academic freedom, but democracy more broadly. It will inspire others to do the same.

Standard