The 2016 EU referendum represented a democratic event, but referenda are complicated, and at times problematic tools of democracy. What we have seen since the referendum, and something which would seem to concern a great number of MPs, commentators and critics, is the referendum result being used to potentially justify a ‘Hard Brexit’. This would involve a complete removal of the UK from the European single market, where EU politicians would seem to be offering access only on the basis of the free movement of labour. This is not what the British people have voted for, and any attempt to use the referendum to justify this as the ‘public will’ is rightly contested. It is my argument here that the only way to rectify this would be to give the public a greater say over policy decisions which effect immigration, in that this is the only way that the result of the Brexit process can be seen to be legitimate in the eyes of the public as a whole.
In terms of practical ways that this could be achieved I believe that the government needs to begin a dialogue with the British public, and the British public with each other, over immigration policy. British Future’s research has shown that the British public generally maintain fairly moderate views about restricting immigration, and it is key that we let this majority be heard (What next after Brexit? Immigration and integration in post-referendum Britain 2016). I believe that a national conversation is vitally needed, and it is reassuring that British Future is promoting this idea. It was significant that the Canadian national conversation on immigration, launched in July 2016, contained an open online survey, where individuals could answer questions outlining not simply their concerns about immigration, but their views about how immigration can best suit the needs of Canadian society in the future, what adjustments can be made to immigration policy and processing to facilitate this, and crucially the significance of Canada’s role as a leader on global migration.
The debate that followed the referendum result has demonstrated the problem with basing a public discussion on a simplistic, for or against, foundation. A nuanced discussion, which the majority of the public would prefer, can be guided by the modern, engaging approach taken by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). On top of this focus groups carried out at the local level would be beneficial, in that immigration is an issue which is most salient within the concerns of local communities, though these should be carried out in relation to a broader discussion. It is the question of the kind of country we want to live in which sits at the heart of this debate, and the majority of the public would like the UK to be able to continue to attract the people it needs to contribute to our social and economic development. In order to do so this conversation needs to focus on the positive benefits migrants bring, but also how we can build an immigration policy which best supports this, and maintains legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
As an endnote, it is key that unlike the EU referendum, non-UK citizens living here are included in this conversation. This significant proportion of UK residents, and future citizens, has a right to contribute their voice to this discussion. In doing so I believe that it is possible to begin to mend the social cohesion which has been dented by the Brexit process, and those with more radical views can, through engagement, be shown that a more moderate approach is what is in the interests of the UK as a whole.
Suggestion for a Future Event
In my opinion it would be beneficial to invite someone from the current Canadian government, or CIC, to speak about their approach to immigration policy and integration. While Canada and the UK face their own unique challenges, the way that public officials engage with voters over this issue, whether in the language they use, or the values they talk about, is respectful while at the same time not patronising, and focuses on integration by accepting diversity as a common inheritance.
This is a tradition that both countries share, and it would be interesting to see what we can gain by evaluating the way we approach the issue of immigration and integration in public discourse.
British Future Application 