Tag Archive: Britain

German Flags are Fluttering in Britain – Kloppmania in Liverpool

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

It’s not that common to see a Union Jack flag fluttering on British soil, except where the royal family is concerned. Seeing a European Union (EU) flag is as rare as spotting a dodo. But a seeing a German flag on British soil is something that I never thought I would witness, but that is exactly what happened yesterday. So what is the cause of this unexpected event? Is it the Brits getting the German reunification celebrations wrong by a few weeks? Is it perhaps celebrating the fact that Germany is doing them a favour by giving refuge to probably over 1 million refugees and asylum seekers to Britain’s 20,000 spread over five years? No, it is “Kloppmania”. Let me explain.

October 17, 2015 AFP PHOTO IAN KINGTON

October 17, 2015 AFP PHOTO IAN KINGTON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been a fan of Liverpool Football Club (LFC) since I first came to England in 1977. That was the year that Kevin Keegan left Liverpool for Hamburg SV, sparking off the German club’s revival and winning the Bundesliga in the 1978–79 season for the first time in nineteen years. But it was also the year when he was replaced by an even better player, namely Kenny Dalglish or simply King Kenny, as he is affectionately known at the club. They played glorious football, resulting in LFC retaining the European Cup and winning the European Super Cup (by beating a HSV team including Keegan). Domestically, they were runners-up in the league (to Nottingham Forest) and the Football League Cup. The team went on be the dominant team in England and in Europe, winning 5 of the titles in 1970s and six in the 1980s, as well as collecting 4 European Cups (now Champion’s League) along the way. However, the last league title was in the 1989-90 season, prior to the establishment of the Premier League. All good things come to an end and it has certainly been downhill more or less all the way since. Liverpool has not won the league titles for 25 years: a quarter of a decade!

Seven managers have come and gone in that time. Several have come close to winning the premier league (runners-up 4 times since 1989-90), most recently in the 2013-14, when the club played uninhibited, exhilarating, swashbuckling football, reminiscent of the dim and distant heyday. However, it was yet another false dawn and since the bitter disappointment of being runners-up there has been a season and a bit where all the hopes and aspirations of the fans have been crushed to the point where they could no longer recognise the team or the tactics.

Liverpool is a proud and historic city, but de-industrialisation has done it few favours. Reflecting the football, the city has experienced a period of decline. It may be one the poorest cities in the UK but it remains solidly working class the fans are as committed, vocal and passionate as ever, perhaps expressed most vividly in their support for the red half of the city (the other team, Everton, is the blue part) when they sing “You’ll never Walk Alone” (YNWA). They understand the game and expect their players to be committed and brave on the ball and to play in the Liverpool way. Intense is the word that best describes the cauldron of football called Anfield. The lack of fighting spirit against any team, especially fierce rivals such as Manchester Unite, is the single most unforgivable thing about recent performances, reflecting poorly on both the players and manager.

Not surprisingly, there was a growing wave of discontent in the stands, including regular booing their own team (but not the manager out of respect) in the last few games, and growing criticism in the media which features a remarkably large number of  ex-Liverpool pundits. The manager had to go – after all, they can hardly fire the whole team – and this is exactly what happened over a week ago. Although not exactly unexpected, it was still a shock the fans, the majority of whom are known for their loyalty to the club through thick and thin.

From the beginning there were two managers in the running according to the media, namely Carlo Ancelotti (ex-Real Madrid among a long list of top clubs) and Jürgen Klopp (ex-Dortmund and Mainz 05). Both are highly successful A-List managers, but the truth be told, I believe I was among the vast majority of fans (over 90% in my estimate) who could quite believe that either one would be appointed for three main reasons:

  • The club is no longer among the wealthiest in the country (5th after Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City) and cannot afford so-called “world class” players, unlike its rivals;
  • The club has not been regularly in the Champion’s League since the last, brief period of glory (winner in 2005 and runner-up in 2007) unlike many other equally illustrious clubs;
  • The burden of history of last winning the league 25 years ago, combined with the sheer scale of challenge involved in clawing up the league table and regaining the long-lost lustre does not appeal to many managers.

Wrong, double wrong and I am very happy to admit it.

I was flabbergasted and yet hugely excited when it became increasingly apparent that we would get Jürgen Klopp as our next manager, with him being unveiled by the club on 16 October 2015. Klopp’s decision to choose Liverpool over any of the leading clubs in the world, has galvanised the red half of the city, though I dare say many of the blue side (Everton FC supporters) are also secretly glad if not proud that he has chosen to come to their part of the NW (as opposed to Manchester) or London.

Now leaving aside the royal family, although there is respect, Germans are not generally held in high esteem in the UK. It is not simply a matter of two wars (which should not be underestimated, even today), it is the strongly held stereotypes which hold that Germans are unexciting and lack a sense of humour. None of this applied for a second to Klopp or “Kloppo” as he is affectionately known by fans. A little bit of research reveals a few consistent facts about the man, which goes to the heart of why football fans take to him and not just in Germany:

  • He is loyal: he is a one club ex-football player (Mainz 05), has managed two clubs (Mainz 05 and Dortmund), each for 7 years. This is increasingly an endangered species in football and one that fans automatically respect, not just Liverpool fans;
  • He gets working class clubs: Mainz, Dortmund and Liverpool have three things in common; all have a working class history, passionate fans whose “anthem” is YNWA and, of course, Klopp himself. He is clearly attracted by the passion and intensity of the fans and is something they take to him like a duck to water;
  • He is larger than life: not only is he is a tall and handsome fella, he has a semi-permanent wide grin and is extremely charismatic. He has his own style and is neither afraid to express his emotions or his opinions. This is something that all fans automatically connect with – managers who sit stony faced, take reams of notes or put up umbrellas are the opposite;
  • He excites all fans: he has his own variant of tactics, most clearly expressed in the hard running (counter pressing or “gegenpressing”) but it is intense, it is emotional and it is exciting football: it is dynamic football and fans all over the world can automatically relate to it. Unlike other managers who talk incessantly about their “philosophy”, Klopp’s approach can be boiled down to this: “So that’s it, it’s very emotional, very fast, very strong, not boring, no chess. Of course tactical, but tactical with big heart. Tactical things are so important, you cannot win without tactics, but the emotion makes the difference. Life in our game, that’s important.” This in turn can be reduced to two words which cannot be mistaken by any fan, regardless of language, culture or tradition: “full throttle” or “heavy metal” football is what is promised and I for one will gladly take that;
  • He knows there is no instant success: he has clearly not selected Liverpool because of mere romanticism, though this is undoubtedly a factor. Klopp has stressed that this was the only club that he has discussed, that he has come because of the players and that it will take time to achieve success with a team such as Liverpool. He says this often with memorable throw away one-liners such as: “I’m here to put things right at Liverpool FC – but don’t think I’m Jesus.” It is not by accident that there was an instant emotional connection. Elements of the great Bill Shankly, who set the club on its path to success, are evident. The world has come to admire the achievements of Dortmund over the German football colossus that is otherwise known as Bayern München. Under Klopp, Dortmund punched above its financial weight and reaped global acclaim for its approach in developing players rather than paying top dollar for ready-made talent. In this context, it struck a chord with the fans when Klopp said that everyone at Liverpool FC had to turn from “doubters to believers.”
  • He is not purely motivated by money: he will earn up to GBP 7 million per annum after bonuses. That is double what his predecessor earned, but he is by no means the best paid in Britain and could have earned more, if that was his sole motivation. Instead, he has accepted one of the biggest challenges in word football. To revive a team (and in the process, the city) with its fading glory and deep yearning for success in a major undertaking, compared to merely fine-tuning a well-oiled elite club with matching finances. This type of challenge is not what 99% of managers out there would go for. The level of expectation connected with such a task has crushed many before him and may well do the same to him (he is well awareness of the club’s history and has likened the weight of the past to carrying it around “like a 20 kg backpack”). He has clearly made his own calculation and let his heart as well as his head rule his decision, rather than the easy option or the bank account.

So what is the outcome?

It is that quite simply, he has gripped the city in “Kloppmania”, but he has excited everyone connected with football too. It is clear that if he is successful with his methods in Liverpool, it will impact the rest of the game and may change the tactics deployed in the UK. That prospect excites all fans. If he is able to change the money game where success if closely correlated with expenditure, as he successfully did at Dortmund, then he will not only affect Liverpool, he will galvanise all other clubs (apart from Man United, Man City and Chelsea) in the Premier League. In the process, he will also give hope to fans all over the world. The reset button will be pressed and the prevailing (largely accurate) view that money buys success on the field will be less dominant and football will get a shot in the arm.

So, it is not surprising that Kloppmania has taken over Liverpool in particular, though the effect is wider in my view, with many other fans hoping that Klopp achieves successful in England. Ex-Manchester United players and pundits such as Gary Neville are already urging caution about the runaway Kloppmania in Liverpool. To some extent, leaving footballing biases to one aside, ne is right to caution us. The first game yesterday showed that Klopp is no magician and certainly no Messiah. After 2 days of training his full squad and having to contend with a long injury list along his leading players, Liverpool played its first game against a team on top form and salvaged a draw against Tottenham Hotspurs. No win, but this team ran more, pressed more intensely, played more freely and defended much better than in three years; there are no complaints from Liverpool fans. We know we are back on the tight track. We feel that Klopp has the knowledge, experience and charisma to make our team better, more exciting and more successful. It is only a matter of time, which of course, is the very commodity which is increasingly disappearing from football.

We may have to wait a lot longer than 25 years to win the Premier League again, but at least we are free to dream once again. So pull out those German flags, wave them proudly and “Walk on, with hope in your heart.”


Elitism in Britain: unequal opportunities = unequal outcomes

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

In my previous post, I showed that, on the basis of their educational background (i.e. whether they attended an independent school and one of the top two universities), the UK cabinet is very much part of the Establishment or the elite of the country. In stark contrast to the German cabinet, there is an extreme concentration of people with such a background: a staggering 42.8% of the British cabinet, are doubly privileged, David Cameron and George Osborne included.

If that was not amazing enough, I would like to report some of the results of an official analysis by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission called Elitist Britain (2014).

Secondary Education and Higher Education are the foundation for elitism

Whereas 89% of pupils attend comprehensive schools, 4% go to grammar schools and a further 7% to independent schools, the latter being independent in terms of finances as well as governance. The terms independent and private school are used synonymous in the UK and basically involve significant tuition charges which only the affluent can afford.

Whereas 62% of the UK adults do not attend university, 1 in 9 attend the so-called Russel Group Universities (the leading 24 higher education institutions in the UK, including Oxford and Cambridge or Oxbridge) but only 1 in 100 attend Oxbridge or 1% of the adult population, which is a classic definition of the elite.

Britain’s elite: formed on the playing fields of independent schools

To get a feel for the influence of the independent schools, consider the following statistics: 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of Permanent Secretaries, 53% of senior diplomats, 50% of members of the House of Lords, 45% of public body chairs, 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists, 36% of the Cabinet, 35% of the national rugby team, 33% of MPs, 33% of the England cricket team, 26% of BBC executives and 22% of the Shadow Cabinet attended independent schools compared with 7% of the public as a whole. This means complete domination of the most powerful and influential positions in UK society by those that attend independent schools.

Britain’s elite: finished in Oxbridge

If that provides food for thought, than the influence of the top two universities in the UK is absolutely gobsmacking: 75% of senior judges, 59% of the Cabinet, 57% of Permanent Secretaries, 50% of diplomats, 47% of newspaper columnists, 44% of public body chairs, 38% of members of the House of Lords, 33% of BBC executives, 33% of the Shadow Cabinet, 24% of MPs and 12% of the Sunday Times Rich List attended Oxbridge, compared to less than 1% of the public as a whole. The influence of Oxford and Cambridge in respect to the top positions in Britain is extremely disproportionate, to put it mildly.

Oxford, R Pinto 2015

Oxford Trinity College, © R. Pinto, 2015

 

Sectors of entrenched elitism

The preceding analysis demonstrates the extent to which privilege is entrenched in Britain and this advantage tends to cumulate over time, since is generally passed-on from generation to generation. Since Britons generally take pride in living in a meritocratic society, it is worth delving a bit deeper into some sectors to illustrate what this form of elitism means in practice:

  • Parliament: the advantages are even more entrenched than suggested at first sight by the fact that 36% of the cabinet went to independent schools and 59% went to Oxbridge. Out of the 365 Members of Parliament (MPs) 33% went to independent schools (52% of Conservatives, 41% of Liberal Democrats and 10% of Labour) and 24% went to Oxbridge (32% of Conserves, 28% of Liberal Democrats and 17% of Labour). It should be noted that the MP data refer to 2014 and thus the previous Parliament, though there is no reason to assume this has changed dramatically in the current parliamentary intake. The situation is even more extreme in the case of the House of Lords or the Upper House. Half of the Lords attended independent schools (50%), which is seven times more than the UK population as a whole and over a third (38%) of the Lords attended Oxbridge.
  • Civil Service: over half (55%) of Whitehall permanent secretaries (the most senior civil servant charged with running government a department or ministry on a day-to-day basis) attended an independent school, as did 45% of Public body chairs and 34% of Public body CEOs. Public bodies are created to provide public services such as British Rail (BR) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Unsurprisingly, more than half of the same Whitehall permanent secretaries are Oxbridge educated (57%), as are 44% of the Public body chairs and 26% of Public body CEOs.
  • Law: 71% of judges attended an independent school and a further 23% of judges attended a grammar school, which take 4% of the pupils. Thus independent/grammar schools account for a staggering 94% of all judges in Britain. Not only that, but one in seven judges (14%) went to just five independent schools: Eton, Westminster, Radley, Charterhouse and St Paul’s Boys. 75% of judges went to Oxbridge. Our judiciary is a highly self-selective group, it seems.
  • Order: the concentration in the army is almost as extreme as for judges and civil servants. Senior armed forces officers were also largely educated in independent schools (62%) and fewer than 1 in 10 (7%) went to comprehensives. But the equivalent in the police services are less concentrated; a mere 22% attended independent schools and 6% went to Oxbridge.
  • Business: Excluding those educated abroad, 41% of British-educated FTSE350 CEOs and six out of 10 of those in the Sunday Times Rich List (60%) were educated privately. Almost half of FTSE350 CEOs (43%) and over a quarter of those on the Sunday Times Rich List attended Russell Group universities (28%), of which 18% and 12% respectively attended Oxbridge.
  • Media: in terms of the other key set of people setting the agenda for the rest of the population, 54% of the Top 100 media professionals (newspaper editors, columnists and broadcasters) are drawn from independent schools and 45% attended Oxbridge. More than two in five newspaper columnists (43%) in the British press attended an independent school; and 47% graduated from Oxbridge. The situation is even more extreme if we add the independent and grammar school categories together (or 11% of the public): 89% of the Top 100 media professionals are from such schools. Looking specifically at the tabloids (a newspaper having pages half the size of those of a standard newspaper, typically popular in style and dominated by headlines, photographs and sensational stories such as The Sun, The Mirror, etc.) 38% of the columnists attended independent schools and 25% attended Oxbridge (and 49% went to a Russell Group institution). 45% of the broadsheet columnists (a newspaper with a large format regarded as more serious and less sensationalist than tabloids such as The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian) went to independent schools and 57% to Oxbridge. The 1% seems to have cornered the media market too.

Self-selection and group think to the fore

As I was writing this piece, I was reflecting on my long-held belief that British society is meritocratic – where the people holding power are selected on the basis of their ability. I still believe this to be the case. I do not doubt that the elite comprising the 7% or 1% is extremely well-educated or that they hold their powerful, prestigious and well-remunerated positions on the basis of their ability. But they are greatly aided by attending the top schools and facilities that money can buy and abetted by a self-selecting and entrenched Oxbridge network of their ilk. To suggest that there is equality of opportunity in Britain, but not necessarily equality of outcome is not only misleading, it is also plain wrong.

This situation may be broadly meritocratic but it is hardly the same as being fair, right or healthy for a democracy; only a small subset of the population has the resources, contacts and know-how to buy the entry ticket to an independent school (7%) which the gateway to securing a pass to one of the top two universities in the country (1%), which in turn results in access to the most influential, powerful and lucrative professions in Britain. The opportunities and the outcomes are systematically cornered, generation after generation, by the same elites.

The very fact that the report Elitist Britain (2014) was released at all demonstrates that the British Establishment is not too concerned about such information being released. Given how little it has been reported or impacted on policy-making (since they also control most of the levers), I guess they are right.

In any case, this fascinating report makes two further points worth noting. The first is that a lack of diversity in the people who are running the country is a problem in and of itself since certain professions should be representative of the public for reasons of legitimacy. This includes politicians, the media and judiciary.

Secondly, a narrow elite implies serious limits on adult social mobility and the sheer scale of the dominance of certain backgrounds raises questions about the degree to which the composition of the elite really reflects merit, as opposed to know-how combined with know-who.

These are serious concerns but the point that really caught my attention concerns the risk of “group think”:

“Where institutions rely on too narrow a range of people from too narrow a range of backgrounds with too narrow a range of experiences they risk behaving in ways and focussing on issues that are of salience only to a minority but not the majority in society. Our research shows it is entirely possible for politicians to rely on advisors to advise, civil servants to devise policy solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the same lectures and even being taught by the same tutors.

The penny drops. I finally understand the reason why so many British politicians and journalists are so consistently and systematically (with some exceptions) pro-leaving “Europe” by which they mean the European Union (EU). Their entrenched group think has blinded them to the benefits of being part of the EU and they systematically underestimate the disadvantages of going it alone, thereby risking the country becoming an increasingly isolated Little Britain.

 

 

 


Elitism in Britain and Germany

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

There has been a lot of discussion about elitism, the Establishment, the 1%, etc., partly driven by the seminal work on wealth and income inequality by the French economist Thomas Piketty (see Capital in the Twenty-First Century). This has been exacerbated recently by the on-going discussion about David Cameron and his Oxford days, including allegations about some of the initiation rituals involved (see #piggate). This post examines elitism in Britain and Germany by analysing the people who make-up the Cabinets in both governments, as a means of establishing the extent to which they form part of elite or not.

First it is important to be clear what we are referring to when we talk about the elite or the Establishment, as illustrated in the box below.

Elite

1. The choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

2. Persons of the highest class: only the elite were there.

3. A group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

4. Representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

(the) Establishment

1. The existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the): the Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.

2. The dominant group in a field of endeavour, organisation, etc.: the literary Establishment.

Source: Dictionary.com

 

The elite is thus a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and/or power. It is not easy to ascertain people´s wealth but there are surrogates that can be used for privilege and power. The Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet are generally considered to be the single most powerful group of people in any nation. Therefore, in assessing the elites and the Establishment, it makes sense to begin with this particular group of people.

In assessing the issue of whether the people concerned are part of the elite / the Establishment / the 1%, I look at two indicators for which information is relatively objective and easily available:

  • Whether they were privately/independently educated in the form of a fee paying school education or not: Britain has a well-established tradition of independent, fee paying schools. Germany too has such schools though their origins and emphasis are different. In both countries the state school system is free but some choose to educate their children privately. Since these involve significant costs compared with state schools, it is generally the privileged that tend to attend such schools. In the case of the UK, 7% of the students go to such schools compared with 6% in Germany;
  • Whether they attended the elite (two top) universities in their respective country or not: in the case of Britain, this would be Oxford University and Cambridge University, often conflated as “Oxbridge.” In the case of Germany, only a couple of universities make it into the top 50 universities in the world, namely Heidelberg’s Ruprecht-Karls-University and Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilians-University. The barriers to attending the elite universities are normally much higher than the rest but the rewards associated with graduating from the top two universities are also disproportionate (the subject of the next post).

It goes without saying that those lucky enough to have both attended a private school and graduated from the top two universities of their respective country are bound to be rewarded with disproportionately higher life-chances compared with their fellow citizen without the benefit of such privileges.

In this post, I explore the issue using official information provided by the respective governments, supplemented with research on cabinet members who are coy about their educational background. The results of the analysis for Britain and Germany are presented in the Table below.

Table 1. Educational Background of the Cabinet in the UK and Germany (2015)

Cabinet_table

Note: the private/independent schools are as easy to identify in Germany as in Britain. Furthermore, it is not always possible to match-up government ministries / departments in the two countries. Sources: www.gov.ukwww.bundesregierung.eu and Wikipedia

So what does the above table tell us about the UK and Germany, based on the educational background of their respective cabinets?

  • Independent school: 9/21 UK vs 1/16 Germany: 42.8% of the UK cabinet attended independent schools compared with only 6.2% in Germany. There is an incredibly high level of concentration in the UK, given that only 7% of the adult population attends independent schools. The German cabinet simply reflects the national trend of 6% of pupils attending such schools;
  • Top 2 universities: 13/21 UK vs 1/16 Germany: an even greater proportion (61.9%) of the UK cabinet attended Britain´s top two universities. To put this in context, only 1% of the adult population of Britain attended Oxbridge. This also contrasts with only 6.2% of the cabinet in Germany attending its top two universities. An astounding 38% of the British cabinet attended Oxford alone. If you think this is something new or specific to the Conservative party, you’d be wrong; it is merely a matter of degree. Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are all Oxbridge educated, as were 12 of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet. Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the Labour party, was educated in an independent school but did not complete his higher education;
  • Independent school and top 2 universities: 9/21 UK : 0/16 Germany: whereas none of the German cabinet were privately educated and went to the country’s top two universities, a staggering 42.8% of their British counterparts did, David Cameron and George Osborne included, thus being doubly privileged.

Based on the indicators of private / independent education and/or attending Oxbridge, as well as being a member of the Cabinet, the elite or the Establishment is very much alive and in rude health in Britain. Independently educated pupils, especially those from the elite schools, disproportionately go to Oxbridge (taking 44% of the places at Oxford and 38% at Cambridge) and end-up in the Cabinet. Coincidence is not the main factor at play; layer upon layer of privilege and entitlement piled upon each other is closer to the truth.

By contrast, the German cabinet is positively plebeian. I shall leave it to the reader to determine which they prefer and why.

The recent and totally unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of the Labour Party (who has not exactly grown-up in the proverbial social housing estate or attended an inner city state school) appears to be partly a reaction to the “more of the same” politics by the ruling elites. No such trend is evident in Germany.


The Queen of the Referendum: Elizabeth II in Germany

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

Queen Elizabeth II has just completed a four-day state visit to Germany, included a visit to the Bergen-Belsen prisoner of war and concentration camps (where Anne Frank wrote her famous diary and died shortly before liberation), met the President Joachim Gauk and the Chancellor Angela Merkel, and visited Berlin and Frankfurt. The German people went bananas about the state visit – it was almost as if Germany had become the 54th member of the Commonwealth!

The Royal Family is very popular among ordinary Germans despite the recent history of two World Wars. Royal marriages, divorces and births are followed closely and there is an obvious affection for the Queen. The pomp and ceremony, including the flag waving, are just not part of the culture in modern Germany, though it is noticeable that they have become a lot more at ease about waving the German flag since the football World Cup was staged in Germany in 2006. Partly because the Germans are much more buttoned-up about the whole concept of patriotism, the Royal visit was an occasion to dress up, go mad and just enjoy the state visit. English flags were still a lot more visible than German ones.

Queen Elizabeth in Germany 2015

Picture: John MacDougall/Pool Photo via Associated Press

Of course, there are strong connections between the British Royal Family and Germany, going back quite some time. But even in terms of the present, few realise that Prince Philip is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and that he was partly educated in Germany. But at the end of the day what matters is quite simply that Germans admire the Queen’s charm and sheer will-power; it is a rare sight for an 89 going 90 year-old to perform her role so competently. A rapidly ageing nation such as Germany certainly knows how to appreciate this.

The royal couple’s first visit to Germany was actually back in 1965. It was an important state occasion, involving a marathon 11 cities and it is a generally acknowledged that it helped heal the wounds of World War II. As in the case of the first visit, the fifth and quite possibly last one, also drew large, enthusiastic crowds and generated significant media coverage.

Rex

Rex

Picture: Rex

Neither Mr David Cameron nor Mrs Angela Merkel would have had one-tenth of the pulling power of the Queen, let alone one-hundredth of her influence in terms of building positive international relations between the people of Germany and the UK citizens. And, let us face it, after the on-going centrifugal forces generated by a possible Grexit, not to mention a possible Brexit, as well as the austerity drive which, rightly or wrongly, is associated with the EU and Germany, Europe can certainly do with a lot more of this sort of thing – it is a precious glue binding two nations together.

However, what has been the most significant aspect of the official state visit is actually the speech she gave, which is not normally reported (other than the Opening of Parliament Speech). The Queen’s speech was widely discussed and reported in the British media. What she said was:

“The United Kingdom has always been closely involved in its continent… Even when our main focus was elsewhere in the world, our people played a key part in Europe.”

Blink and you would have missed what all the fuss is about, not least because the crucial word uttered only contained three letters, namely the reference to the UK and “its” continent. The Queen could easily have chosen the word which would normally have been used in the sentence, namely “the” rather than “its”, but for whatever reason chose to do otherwise.

It is very easy, indeed dangerous, to over- or mis-interpret the supposed meaning of a single word. Nevertheless, given the febrile discussions in the UK about the forthcoming referendum on whether to remain or exit the EU, the Queen’s speech is being widely regarded as an indication that the Queen favours continuing UK membership of the EU.

But the greater controversy concerned the speech delivered in Berlin on Wednesday, where she warned of the “dangers” of division in Europe and the need to “guard against it”. What she said was:

“We have witnessed how quickly things can change for the better. But we know that we must work hard to maintain the benefits of the postwar world… We know that division in Europe is dangerous and that we must guard against it in the west as well as in the east of our continent.”

This part of the speech, which could be read at different levels, is what has caused consternation among Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party as well as UKIP. The main reason is that it could be interpreted as being for the EU status quo and such speeches are normally done in conjunction with government officials. In other words, the suggestion is that the Queen is uttering that which Mr Cameron shirks saying himself.

Despite the protestations emanating from Buckingham Palace and Downing Street that the Queen was not setting out a position in favour of the UK remaining in the EU, the speech resonates. The sentences chosen by the Queen made it clear that Britain is part of the European continent, that it is not a matter of “us and them”, as some would wish to portray things and that Europe (EU?) should remain united (though the Greeks appear to be doing their best to do the opposite).

The Queen is supposed to be above politics but this is clearly nonsense. After all, she opens parliament. She appoints the Prime Minister and meets with him or her on a weekly basis. Not only does the Queen have a mostly ceremonial role in the Parliament of the whole of the UK, she also has formal responsibilities within the devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore naive to maintain that she is a neutral observer and that and the Royal Family is above politics.

Yet this is precisely what Buckingham Palace maintains and the average Brit is happy to believe, despite the recent “Black Spider” memo letters written by Charles, Prince of Wales, to the British government ministers and politicians over the years. Despite the British monarchy being supposedly politically neutral, the letters sent by Charles may be interpreted as an attempt to exert influence over British government ministers on a wide-ranging set of issues including farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture. If this is the case with Charles’ private letters, surely the Queen is able to influence politics, not to mention her subjects.

If she is really trying to influence British voters to vote in favour of remaining in the EU in the forthcoming referendum on the matter, I would agree fully with her instincts. But the fact remains that she would not be politically neutral and neither should Bucking Palace, Downing Street nor anyone else pretend otherwise.

Besides, this would not be the first time that the Queen has waded into referendums and possibly influenced their outcome. The most recent example of this was in September 2014. Shortly before the voting day on the Scottish referendum, the English Establishment, not least Downing Street, was panicked by the exit polls suggesting that there would be a majority in favour of Scotland becoming independent, into using every means possible to sway the vote in favour of Union.

By all accounts, the Queen was encouraged by Downing Street to speak out on the issue. Her views on the matter had been made clear in her silver jubilee address to a joint session of parliament in 1977, when she said:

“I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.”

In the end, the plea issued by Buckingham Palace, with perfect timing, was to urge voters in Scotland to “think very carefully” about the referendum in an apparently spontaneous response to someone in the crowd. Needless-to-say, this too was widely reported by the media shortly before the vote.

Like the words “its continent,” dangers of “division in Europe” and the need to “guard against it”, small things can make a significant difference in a country where her subjects revere the Queen. It is widely assumed that the urge to “think very carefully” was sufficient to influence swing voters during the Scottish referendum, resulting in a last-minute surge in favour of retaining the Union. That said, it is far from clear that the outcome of that particular referendum in favour of of retaining the Union will be the last word on the matter, as far as the Scottish National Party and the Scottish people are concerned.

When it comes to the most profound issues facing the UK and its future, I believe that the Queen is not quite as politically impartial and Buckingham Palace would suggest. I suspect that Elizabeth II may well turn out to be, among other things, the Queen of the Referendum.


Housing Markets in Britain and Germany: Similarities and Contrasts

© Ricardo Pinto, 2015, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

Housing as a basic necessity

Someone asked the other day: “If you had to choose one issue that fundamentally differentiates Germany from Britain, what would it be?” This is a tough question to answer since the response depends directly on what the individual considers to be important and we all prioritise things differently.

For me, the single most important thing, regardless of country and its level of development, is the extent to which our essential human needs are fulfilled or not. The definitions vary but the three immediate “basic needs” have traditionally been food (and water), clothing and shelter, followed by sanitation, education and healthcare. In the sense of fulfilling our basic needs, the key difference between Britain and Germany for me personally, is the issue of shelter or housing. The economic, social and cultural right to adequate housing and shelter is recognised in many national constitutions, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But this right is not simply about having a roof over one´s head, it is also a matter of whether it is affordable to households with different levels of income, as well as whether people are able to enjoy security of tenure (without fear of unreasonable eviction, rent hikes, etc.), which is fundamental to our quality of life.

To my mind, Germany broadly fulfils the right to housing, as well as affordability and security of tenure. But it is far from clear that Britain does; indeed according to some indicators, the housing market may even be moving backwards.

I have previously written a blog post comparing housing in Britain and Germany and another that argued that none of the main political parties in Britain are prioritising housing policy. The post comparing the UK/German housing systems concluded where I want to pick up in this post:

“… the AngloDeutsch™ Blog will compare and contrast the housing system in Britain and Germany. There is significant potential for policy-makers in both countries to learn from each other, despite the clear specificities and uniqueness. I plan to focus on key themes such as: the differences in the housing structure in the two housing systems; the variation in the house price trends and the reasons for it; the differences in the housing finance system; the reasons why one housing system has consistently delivered high quality, affordable homes, whereas the other has consistently failed to do so over several decades.”

This blog post sets the broad nature of the housing systems in Britain and Germany, with reference to the European Union (EU) context. The analysis below covers the issue of tenure, dwelling type, size and quality, dwelling construction (supply), adult population (demand), price and affordability. It demonstrates that the housing systems in Britain and Germany are fundamentally different in some ways, yet remarkably similar in others.

Housing Tenure: owner occupation, social renting and private renting

Housing tenure basically refers to the legal rights of different forms of housing ownership and occupancy. The first distinction to note is owning and renting; whereas the owner buys a property (new or existing), the renter makes a regular payment to the owner for the right to live in a property. If the rent is paid to a private individual / institution, this is private renting. If the rent is paid to a local authority, housing association or cooperative, it is known as social renting.

Table 1 illustrates the tenure differences between Britain and Germany.

Table 1: Tenure in Britain and Germany, 2013 (%)

Tenure Type UK (2007) Germany (2001)
Owner Occupation 70 41
Social Renting 18 6
Private Renting 13 49
Other 0 5

Sources: International trends in housing tenure mortgage finance (2014); Housing Tenure (2009)

The key difference is that whereas Britain is primarily a nation of homeowners (70%), Germany is a nation of renters (55%) and has one of the lowest proportions of owner occupiers in Europe. These rather dated statistics reflect the fact that housing tenure is not collected on a like-for-like basis across countries. A notable feature of the British housing system is the recent decline of owner occupation in favour of private renting. To counteract this issue and to include the EU dimension, I Table 2 presents Eurostat data with a focus on population by tenure status.

Table 2: Population by tenure status, 2013 (%)

Tenure Type UK Germany EU-28
Tenant 35,4 47,4 30,0
Tenant — reduced price or free 18,1 8,5 11,0
Owner 64,6 52,6 70,0
Owner occupied, with mortgage or loan 37,4 27,6 27,3
Owner occupied, no outstanding mortgage or loan 25,0 27,3 42,7

Source: Eurostat Housing Statistics SILC, (online data code: ilc_lvho02)

On this basis, by 2013 Germany had also become a nation of owner occupiers (52,6%) but renting remained equally important (47,4%) in terms of population. The respective figures in the UK are 64.6% and 35.4%, highlighting the fact that the level of private renting has experienced a revival in recent years, partly as a result of government policy. In the EU-28 countries, the situation is much closer to Britain than to Germany (70% and 30% respectively). .

Housing type: flats, detached and semi-detached dwellings

Major tenure differences exist in Britain and Germany but the variance is even more pronounced when it comes to type of dwelling that people actually live in. Britain is very much a nation of house dwellers, with 84,8% living in detached or semi-detached homes. By contrast, Germany is even more a nation of flat/apartment dwellers (53,2%) than in the EU-28 (41,6%) as a whole. Britons obviously love their houses and gardens but I am not sure if the rest of the EU loves flats, even if a large proportion of the population in Europe certainly lives in one.

Table 3: Distribution of population by dwelling type, 2012 (% of population)

Dwelling Type Britain Germany EU-28
Flat 14,5 53,2 41,6
Detached house 23,9 28,6 34,0
Semi-detached house 60,9 16,7 23,7
Other 0,7 1,5 0,7

Source: Eurostat Housing Statistics YB2014 II (online data code: ilc_lvho01)

Housing Quality

An important aspect of quality of life is not only having a roof over one´s head, but the quality of the housing conditions that people live in. The overcrowding rate (% of people living in an overcrowded dwelling) in the EU-28 was a remarkably high 17.2% in 2012. The figure was much lower in UK (7%) and Germany (6,6%) according to the Housing Statistics Year Book (2014). The situation in the two countries is remarkably similar but 6-7% of people living in overcrowded dwellings is still a relatively high figure.

The severe housing deprivation rate is defined as the proportion of persons living in a dwelling which is considered as being overcrowded, while having at the same time at least one of the following housing deprivation measures: lack of a bath or a toilet, a leaking roof in the dwelling or a dwelling considered as being too dark. Across the EU-28 as a whole, 5.1 % of the population experienced severe housing deprivation in 2012. The equivalent percentage was much lower in the UK (2%) and Germany (1,9%).

Within the population at risk of poverty (households with a disposable income per person below 60% of the national median), the overcrowding rate was 29.4% in the EU-28, but the figure was much lower in the UK (13,6%) and Germany (17,6%). Poverty and poor housing conditions go together to large extent.

Dwelling Size

When it comes to dwelling size, unfortunately the UK data are not comparable with other countries. The average dwelling is almost 107 m² in size in Germany, compared with 102 m² in the EU-28.

Table 4: Size of the dwelling by tenure status, 2012 (m²)

Dwelling Type Britain Germany EU-28
Total – unreliable data 106.8 102.3
Owner
– with mortgage or loan – unreliable data 128.9 105.2
– without mortgage or loan – unreliable data 135.1 124.5
Renter
– market price – unreliable data 76.8 78.6
– reduced rent or free – unreliable data 82.4 80.7

Source: Eurostat ad-hoc module ‘Housing Conditions’ (HC020)

Space standards are significantly more generous in dwellings that are owned than those that are rented in both Germany and the EU. The private rented sector has the lowers dwelling size of all.

Broadly the same trends are likely to apply in the UK. For example, the English Housing Survey Housing stock report found that. “The average useable floor area of dwellings in England was 91 m². However some 52% of social sector bungalows, 50% of social sector flats and 35% of private rented flats had a total floor area of less than 50 m²” (2008, p.8). The indications are not only that the average dwelling size is smaller in the UK than in Germany and the EU-28. There is evidence that the average new average new home in the UK is actually getting smaller over time (76 m²). Elsewhere, the average size of new homes is increasing.

Housing Supply

House developments are influenced by many factors but a strong relationship exists between house prices and other indicators of demand and supply. Specifically in terms of supply, housing construction (i.e. building permits issued and housing units completed) is related to house price developments. If supply is out of kilter with demand, it may not matter too much in the short-term, but over a period of decades it can lead to acute housing stress and eventually crisis. The trend in terms of supply of housing in Britain and Germany is illustrated below.

Graph 1: Housing Completions in Britain and Germany (2002-2013)

Graph 1 Housing Completions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Hypostat 2014, Table 12, Housing Completions, author additions

Graph 1 illustrates that Germany has outperformed Britain in terms of new supply of housing during the last decade or so. As demand for housing increased post-2008, there is evidence of supply responding accordingly. The German government forecasts 270,000 residential completions in 2015, the highest number of completions in over a decade, and argues that construction has reached the amount needed to keep up with future demand. By contrast, in Britain a country which is acknowledged by all and sundry to be in the depths of a full-blown housing crisis, supply has flat-lined around 140,000 completions per annum and government forecasts 135,000 completions in 2015. This suggests that housing supply is significantly more responsive in Germany than in Britain, despite not actually experiencing a housing crisis. The reasons for this critical difference will be explored in future blog posts.

Total Dwelling Stock and Adult Population: demand

Another way to examine the situation is to examine the changes in adult population (over 18 years of age) and the extent to which the total dwelling stock is keeping up with the changing demand. During the period 2002-2013, the adult population in Germany increased by 1.8 million. During the same period, the dwelling stock increased by over 2 million units. By contrast, whereas the adult population in Britain increased by 4.4 million, the dwelling stock only increased by 2.1 million units (see Hypostat 2014, 26 Population 18 years of age and over). I shall explore other indicators of demand in future posts to illustrate the point that supply is lagging behind demand and has done so for decades in Britain.

House Prices

The OECD’s real house price index for the period 1970 (2nd quarter) to 2013 (4th quarter) reveals fascinating trends, as illustrated in the graph below.

Graph 2: Real House Prices in Britain, Germany and Euro Countries (1970-2013)

Graph 2 Real House Prices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: OECD Real house prices database (seasonally adjusted, index based in 2010)

What the real House Price Index shows is that British house prices have historically been significantly lower than the German ones. But whereas the prices declined gradually from 1994 onwards in Germany, the UK experienced rapid price increases (with some volatility, especially during 1989-1992) until the end of 2007, when the global economic and financial crises hit. Thereafter, German house prices flat-lined for a while, but increased rapidly from 2010 – 2013, a trends that continues today. By contrast the UK prices experienced a steep decline in 2008, followed by a gradual increase from the end of 2013 onwards, a trend which has more or less continued to today.

Rising since the 1970s, the UK house prices eventually surpassed those of Germany for a five-year period (2005 and 2010) but a gap is evident once more. For Germany, the real house price index remained more or less the same in 1970 as in 2013, suggesting a fairly stable housing market.

The trends in house prices in the two countries are ultimately a reflection of demand and supply issues. Since supply is highly restricted in the UK for various reasons to be discussed in a future blog post, the trend of house price increases is almost certain to continue, especially in London and the South East region.  It is only a matter of time until the UK house price index outstrips that of Germany once again.

Housing Affordability

Housing affordability is a fundamental issue. Countries have broadly the same definition for this, namely that affordable housing should address the housing needs of the lower or middle-income households. The level of disposable household income is a key factor in determining affordability and it is ultimately the responsibility of governments to create the framework conditions for the delivery of affordable housing.

Eurostat defines the proportion of the population living in households that spent more than 40% of their disposable income on housing as the housing cost overburden rate. Table 5 illustrates the situation in German, UK and EU-28 countries.

Table 5: Housing Cost Overburden Rate, 2011 (% of population)

Dwelling Type Britain Germany EU-28
Owner
– with mortgage or loan 8.8 13.6 8.6
– without mortgage or loan 9.1 10.5 6.2
Renter
– market price 45 21.4 26.8
– reduced rent or free 23.9 16.5 13.3

Source: Eurostat Housing cost overburden rate (ilc_lvho07a). Data from 2011 used because there was a break in the UK time series in 2012.

As a general rule, a significantly higher proportion of the population in the rented sector experience affordability problems than in the owner sector. Furthermore, the problem is particularly important in the private renting sector (market rents) and is especially acute in Britain, where 40% of the population in the private renting sector experiences a housing cost overburden. Overall, although the housing cost overburden rate is higher in Britain than in the EU-28 countries, the rate is higher still in Germany in the two owner categories. However, the housing cost overburden rate in the private and public rented categories are significantly higher in Britain than elsewhere.

The housing cost overburden rate also varies between different groups of society. Generally, women are more vulnerable to housing cost overburden than men and, in some countries, the elderly tend to experience it more than the younger age groups. But the housing cost overburden rate says nothing about the extent to which people can afford to get a foot on the property ladder or rent privately. If people cannot do so, they have little alternative but to live with parents, friends, etc. in order to meet their housing needs.

Two Markets: different realities

Based on the analysis above, the tenure pattern in Britain and Germany is very different in some ways: there are many more owner occupiers, people living in houses rather than flats, the dwellings are smaller and getting smaller over time and there is noticeably less responsiveness in the supply of housing in the UK than in Germany.

On the other hand, the two housing markets converge in other respects:  general overcrowding rate, overcrowding rate within the population at risk of poverty, severe housing deprivation rate, etc. are remarkably similar.

Other indicators are mixed:  house prices suggest a fairly stable German housing market but a somewhat volatile British housing market which is likely to exceed the German prices. The owner sector seems to exhibit more housing affordability issues in Germany, yet affordability concerns are much more acute in the British rented sector, especially in the case of private renting.

The temptation may be to conclude that the differences in the two countries are not that great: wrong and double wrong! We all know the quotation: “There three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”. Statistics are one thing but the housing reality is quite another. In the course of the next few blog posts, I intend to elucidate my starting point, namely that if I had to choose one thing that fundamentally differentiates Germany from Britain, it would be its housing system.


Britain has taken away my right to vote (and I want it back)

With the British General Election due on 07 May 2015, I tried to register to vote as a Brit living in Germany. Imagine my shock at discovering that not only has my right to vote been taken away from me, but I will never again be entitled to vote in any future British election. Britain has just withdrawn my fundamental democratic right without a warning or right to appeal against it.

Gobsmacked? Join the club, because so am I. In what is supposed to be one of the oldest parliamentary democracies, Parliament has withdrawn what I always believed to be one of my most fundamental rights for the rest of my life.

You are perhaps thinking that I must have done something to have lost my democratic rights. I have lost my right to vote because Parliament has determined that I have lived too long away from the UK. This is otherwise known as the “15 Year Rule” whereby British citizens automatically lose their democratic right to vote in British elections; they simply fall into the grey Zone that I now find myself in. By virtue of being in a European Union country, I am at least eligible to vote in German local, regional and European elections, but not their national elections, since I am not a German citizen. As of today, I know that I shall never again be able to vote in any election in Britain unless I return to the UK, when my rights would be restored.

So it is worth asking why is this the case? Is there something logical and reasonable about the 15 Year Rule or is it an arbitrary decision taken by Parliament which deprives people of their democratic right to vote?

The main rationale for the 15 Year Rule appears to be to limit the vote to only those who are affected by decisions made in Westminster or who have retained ties with the UK. If so, there are serious problems with this line of argument.

Is this a throwback to a long gone colonial era where people migrated to some distant land, lost complete touch with their country of origin and never returned to the UK? If so, Parliament is woefully out of touch with the world of today.

Who is to say that I am no longer affected by the decisions made by Parliament? For example, I have and continue to contribute to the UK State Pension and the decisions made by Parliament will certainly affect me until the day I die. Secondly who is to say that I have now lost my ties with the UK? My parents, my brother and my oldest and closest friends live in the UK. With globalisation, cheaper international travel and the ICT revolution, they are ever more accessible to me than ever before, even though I may not be physically in the UK. I believe I am at least as well informed and in touch with social, political and economic developments in the UK than the average voter, so why should I be penalised in this arbitrary manner? Does living across the Channel in “Europe” automatically mean that I have lost touch with Britain after a predetermined period of time? And who can decide whether the cut-off point should be 1, 5, 15, 25, 50 years or the day I die?

I do not accept at all that a 15 Year Rule or indeed any other time or other restriction should apply, especially in today´s day and age where the internet and international travel have shrunk space while increasing accessibility to almost everything. It is not only the apparently arbitrary nature of the rule that I object to; it also appears to be punitive and anti-democratic to force people like me into a grey zone where I shall never again be eligible to vote in any future British election unless I return to the UK.

The supposition that my links, connections and interests to and in the UK are somehow automatically lost after 15 years spent abroad is neither logical nor defensible. It amounts to little more than a hypothesis which cannot be proven, except at the individual level. It is equally arbitrary to automatically return all my democratic rights if and when I choose to return to the UK. I could then immediately leave again and be eligible to vote for another 15 years and keep doing the same thing over and over again. But why should I resort to doing this?

On the other hand, Article 25 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, … without unreasonable restrictions: (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.” The 15 Year rule would appear to be amount to an “unreasonable restriction” and thus to contravene this Covenant, which Britain has signed and ratified.

The situation becomes even more interesting when one examines the data on overseas voters. Firstly, the problem is very well-known to government (see “Voter engagement in the UK, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15“, 2014). Secondly, a mere 15,818 such overseas voters are actually registered to vote, which is remarkably few. Thirdly and most interestingly, there are actually a staggering 4.7 – 5.5 million potential overseas voters, only 1% of whom are currently registered to vote in the UK. The total number of eligible electors in 2014 was 45 million, so about 5 million amounts to potentially over 10% of the electorate. It is not known how many of the 99% are, like me, artificially debarred from voting by the 15 Year Rule, but it must be a significant number.

The current situation is an anti-democratic disgrace. The House of Commons report “Voter engagement in the UK, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15” stressed that something had to be done about overseas voters by the 2015 General Election:

“Although British citizens are only entitled to register to vote for UK elections if they were resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, it is clear that only a very small percentage of those who are likely to be eligible to register to vote are actually on the electoral register. It is not acceptable that such a small proportion of this franchise is registered to vote” (Paragraph 90)

However, it failed to make a recommendation about the 15 Year Rule itself. As far as I can see, the Government has simply ignored both issues. It is interesting to note that Germany used to have a 25 Year Rule, which was a much longer period of time than the current UK rule. However, the exclusion from the right to vote of German citizens residing outside the Member States of the Council of Europe who had departed from the Federal Republic of Germany more than 25 years previously was deleted in 2008, and with good reason.

With about 5 million votes at stake, many of which are affected by the 15 Year Rule, it is more than clear that it must be replaced by something logical, proportionate and democratic. At the very least, British citizens living in EU countries should be excluded from the 15 Year Rule. This would be a very partial improvement. The whole thing must be scrapped for all overseas voters.

Perhaps starting an ePetition after the General Election is over would be the way forward.

Ricardo Pinto, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU


The Housing Crisis and the Main Political Parties´ Solutions

Britain has had a housing issue over a period of decades which has morphed into a full blown housing crisis. So it is worth asking the question: just how do the leading political parties aim to solve the housing crisis, an issue which has been extensively discussed in the media and which directly affects people´s quality of live? This question focuses mainly on Britain, though the German situation is also touched upon.

Is there a housing crisis?

In Britain, no one seriously questions the fact that there is not only a real housing crisis in Britain, but that it is the worst it has been in a generation. In fact the worst situation in a generation does not really capture the issue since the current levels of house building in Britain are actually the lowest in peacetime since the 1920s. Unlike frequent hints and suggestions to the contrary, this is not first and foremost due to an increase in migration from the European Union (EU), which started in 2004, peaked in 2009 and been running at lower levels since. This is not to suggest that net positive annual migration does not impact on housing demand and thus ultimately on house prices. It is to argue that a full-blown housing crisis has taken decades to reach the current level, rather than being a consequence of 11 years of migration from the new accession and other EU countries. Rather, it is the direct consequence of neglect by the leading political parties over generations.

Demand for housing is not simply about migration, it is also about the overall population growth, as well as other factors such as regional migratory patterns, trend towards smaller households and various many other factors. To argue, as the media, the politicians and many ordinary people increasingly have, that the current housing crisis is due to migration in general and/or so-called „uncontrolled“ EU migration in particular is quite simply pie in the sky.

The other key factor, of course, is supply of housing and here, we see the real problem which has resulted in the current housing crisis. Unlike Germany, where demand and supply are responsive to one another (albeit it with a time lag that is caused by investors, the construction industry and the planning system taking time to react to the changing circumstances), the same does not apply to Britain and has not done so for decades. Quite simply not enough housing is constructed to meet demand. At its core, this is fundamentally the cause of the housing crisis in Britain, though there are numerous factors which deliver this unsatisfactory outcome.

Of course, one could discuss the effects of certain policies which have affected the housing policy dynamic, the most important one being the Right-to-Buy policy, which since 1980 has resulted in 1,5 million homes being sold at discount. However, this does not affect demand and supply situation. People still need to live somewhere, regardless of whether a former council owned property is now owned by the last former tenant or not.

What are the solutions to the British housing crisis?

It is safe to say that one of the two leading parties is likely to lead whichever government comes into power after 07 May 2015. So it is worth asking the question of what they are proposing in their election manifestos to solve this major social and economic ill which affects the younger generations in particular (but not only). These are, of course, also the ones which either do not vote or tend to vote proportionately less than their parents´ and grandparents´ generation.

The answer in terms of what they are proposing is, sadly but perhaps predictably, not that much.

  • Labour Party: promises that 200,000 houses will be built annually by 2020, meaning that the numbers will be a lot lower until then. Given that annual construction is currently running at half that number, this is a realistic target but there is little detail on how this will actually be achieved, let alone ensuring that such housing is affordable.
  • Conservative Party: the supply of housing is not uppermost in the manifesto, since the emphasis is on privatising whatever social housing is left, namely the stock that is used by 1.3 million families living in housing associations. There will also be a requirement for local authorities to sell the most valuable properties from what remains of their housing stock (210,000 or 5%). The sales will be reinvested in new housing supposedly resulting in a larger number of new houses built, compared with those sold. The plan is to create 200,000 Starter Homes over the course of the next five years, which will be sold at a 20% discount to for first time buyers under the age of 40.

Is the end of the housing crisis in sight?

Any way you view the election promises of the two leading parties, the numbers simply do not add up. Even if it were possible to achieve the targets set by 2020, which is in itself doubtful (for example, the Conservative manifesto more or less rules out construction of Green Belt land and the Labour manifesto does not even mention it, referring only to the Lyons Review), neither party is seriously promoting serious, long-term solutions to the housing crisis. Housing is first and foremost a numbers game; the supply has to exceed demand and it needs to be maintained over decades in order to deliver not only sufficient, affordable homes, but also an increase in standards and quality over time.

The proposed solutions are not going to do much for the large numbers of people, especially those under the age of 35, who are currently having to live with their parents or paying high rents for low quality private rented housing. The proposed solutions represent yet another missed opportunity to think long-term and prioritise investment in what is a basic human necessity, as well as something which greatly influences our quality of life. The contrast with other European countries, such as Germany, could not be greater as illustrated in a previous post comparing the German and British housing systems.

Ricardo Pinto, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU


Europe is a litmus test: Britain and a possible EU Referendum

As expected, a key battleground of the British General Election due on 07 May 2015 concerns whether Britain should remain in or out of European Union (EU). The position of the main political parties is now clear namely that Labour, the LibDems and the SNP are all fighting the election on the basis that they wish to remain in the EU, whereas the Conservatives are fighting on the basis that if re-elected, they wish to hold a referendum in 2017 on whether to stay in or leave the EU. The Ukip party´s position is to leave the EU as soon as possible, preferably before 2017.  The manifesto positions are summarised here.

I have written about this the possible Referendum in 2017 before (British Voters and EUroscepticsm: much ado about nothing?), namely that it does not actually rank highly in the the average British voter´s list of priorities.  When the Ipsos MORI poll of January 2015 asked British voters about their top concerns, four issues predominated: healthcare (almost half of voters), economy (one-third) followed by asylum and immigration (one-quarter) and education/schools (one-fifth). Europe/EU as an issue is on par with unemployment, which at present is very low in the UK. Indeed, less than 10% of potential voters consider it to be of importance in their list of priorities. The same post also examined the full list of British voter priorities and concluded that they had very little to do with the EU, since they the vast majority of them, with the exception of EU immigration are largely or entirely the responsibility of the British government. In other words, voting for the Conservatives in order to have a referendum resulting in leaving the EU would change precious little in relation to the state of the NHS, the economy, the education system, the housing system and much else besides. The responsibly for these rests squarely with the British government, not with the EU.

There is, in my view, little or no point to quote research and studies regarding the economic and other consequences of leaving the EU. The fact is that both sides of the debate use the assumptions that best suit the conclusions that they they wish to arrive at. Ultimately, each voter will have to weigh up the pros and cons of staying and leaving the EU. The British voter had to do so in 1975 and chose to join the EU. I shall trust them to arrive at an appropriate conclusion in 2017, should the Conservatives regain power after the General Election.

I would note, however, that the Ukip has been simplifying the pros and cons of leaving the EU and, as I have previously discussed, have made strenuous efforts to conflate the issue of migration, use of the NHS, etc. with the EU which also underplaying the consequences of leaving the EU as soon as possible. By contrast the Conservatives have understood perfectly the consequences of leaving the EU but have simply pandered to their Eurosceptical wing while at the same time seeking to stop the hemorrhage of support in their traditional voters which have, until recent months, been increasingly warming to the dubious charms of the Ukip party.

The Labour party, unlike the LibDems and the SNP, initially gave the impression of sitting on the fence on this issue but have ultimately decided to stay in the EU, while reforming the EU budget and ensuring EU migration does not lead to workers’ wages being undercut.

On 07 April 2015, a leading British political figure waded into the debate and, for a change, it was not to denounce the EU, EU immigration, benefit scroungers and all the rest of the anti-EU rhetoric that has become common place in recent British politics. The person in question has this to say about the possible EU referendum, should the Conservatives be returned to power following the General Election:

“For me Europe is an important litmus test. I believe passionately that leaving Europe would leave Britain diminished in the world, do significant damage to our economy and, less obviously but just as important to our future, would go against the very qualities that mark us out still as a great global nation. It would be a momentous decision….

A decision to exit Europe would say a lot about us [United Kingdom] and none of it good: that an adventurous country has become a timid one; that one with global ambitions has opted to be a parochial bystander; that a country known for its openness to the world shuts the open door nearest to it; that a nation which has built its history on confidence towards others defines itself by resentment to others; that, with all the challenges of the world crowding in upon us, demanding strong and clear leadership, instead of saying ‘here’s where the world should go’, we say ‘count us out’. “

At last, a notable politician has the courage to stand up and be counted in relation to the importance of the EU to the UK and vice versa. The speech by this politician has been prominently reported but alas has also been widely dismissed for the simple reason that it was said by none other than Mr Tony Blair (Europe – a very good reason to vote Labour, 07 April 2015).

This is a terrible pity. Tony Blair has gone from being the darling of the left and the person that brought about Cool Britannia to achieving political pariah status in the years since he resigned in favour of Gordon Brown. The main reason for this is that he was he was blown off course by 9/11 and committed British troops to Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Of course, many seem to find his ability to amass a personal fortune since leaving public office galling, though it is entirely his right to do so and simply mirrors what other ex-Prime Ministers have done.

Personally, I believe that because of the so-called special relationship with the USA, almost any other British Prime Minister would have made the very same decisions that he did at the time and that, just like Margaret Thatcher before him, not only has he defined British politics since 1997 but his legacy continues to do so today.

I admire his capacity to communicate and I respect his political courage for making this speech on the UK and Europe.

 Ricardo Pinto, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU


British Voters and EUroscepticsm: much ado about nothing?

A Historic Turning Point Coming Up?

British voters are weighing up their options, but a strong element of anti-EU sentiment can be detected. The General Election scheduled for 05 May 2015 may well be turn out to be historic. If the Conservative Party wins, it is committed to holding a straight in/out referendum in 2017 about whether Britain is to remain in the EU or not. Previous posts have discussed the role of the eurosceptic Conservative wing and the role played by the Ukip party in the hardening Conservative and Labour Party stance in relation to the EU and EU-related immigration. Previous posts have also discussed a growing anti-Euro and anti-Islam sentiment in Germany, though it is materially different and not as pervasive as in the UK. No obvious anti-EU sentiment can be detected, which is why this post focuses mainly on Britain.

A reading of opinion polls illustrates that the balance of British public opinion, which has never exactly been EUphoric since joining in 1973, appears to be turning stringently EUrosceptic. The common assumption among quite a few politicians and a large segment of the media seems to be that life would become instantly better if only Britain would jettison membership of the EU, regain “control over its borders”, thus stopping “uncontrolled” migration along with excessive “interference” from Brussels in British affairs. But is this really the case? How much would actually change overnight, as far as the voters’ priorities are concerned?

Voter Priorities (2010-2015)

With the British general election not so far away, it is worth asking: just how much would actually change in people’s lives if the UK were to leave EU in terms of immediately improving life in Britain, based on the issues that matter to voters? To address this thought experiment, I have used the latest Ipsos MORI poll which asks about the top concerns of British voters.

British voter priorities 2010-2015

In January 2015 four issues predominated in terms what is important to voters, namely healthcare (almost half), economy (one-third) followed by asylum and immigration (27%) and education/schools (20%). Europe/EU as an issue is on par with unemployment, which at present is a pretty low rate in the UK (less than 10% note it as being important). A further five issues are of some importance in terms of voting intentions (benefits, taxation, housing, foreign affairs and pensions).

Table 1 shows some change since 2010, but the top four priorities have been fairly consistent. What is noticeable, however, is that whereas economy and education have not changed, both health and immigration have risen significantly in importance to British voters since 2010. Perhaps surprisingly, housing is increasing in importance but remains a secondary priority for British voters.

Voter Priorities and UK vs. EU Responsibilities

On the basis of the voter’s priorities, it is worth asking the question: what exactly are the responsibilities of the British Government and what is affected by the EU? On the basis of this question, it is possible to assess what might change for Britons.

UK EU competencies

Below I discuss these issues briefly, focusing first on the top four voter priorities:

  • Health: The Department of Health is entirely responsible for the NHS in terms of budget, priorities, reforms, etc. The main EU influence is in enabling the citizens of the EU-28 to be fully covered when they go to other EU countries without the need for additional health insurance for work, holidays, study, etc. It also allows people to choose where they wish to be treated, if the services are better or waiting lists are shorter. Health Tourism is an issue concerning non-EU citizens, rather than for EU ones. Nothing dramatic would change tomorrow, if the UK were to leave the EU in terms of quality of care, waiting lists, response rates or any of the other key issues of concern to the British voter. If anything, choice is likely to be reduced and extra costs incurred when British citizens travel to the EU. In terms of EU residents living in the UK and their use of the health service, not much would change. If they are working, they are also paying for the NHS through their National Insurance contributions. Otherwise, they would have to insure themselves privately and still have access to health in Britain. The exception would be if the UK chooses to deport, something that is barely imaginable. Verdict: no change. There are no magical solutions to the problems of the health service in Britain. The trends are neither recent nor connected with membership of the EU.
  • Economy: the UK is entirely in charge of its macro- and micro-economic destiny, since it is not part of the euro and thus not affected by the eurozone rules. The UK can affect its interest rates and implement quantitative easing to its heart’s content. The Stability and Growth Pact does have requirements, such as no budget deficits greater than 3% of GDP, no public debt exceeding 60% of GDP without diminishing by 5% per year on average over 3 years. Verdict: nothing would change. The UK and many other countries have greatly exceeded these limits at a time of serious economic and financial concerns. Britain is 100% in charge of its destiny, unlike Greece, Spain, etc. The Chancellor has already set in train further drastic reductions in public expenditure in the next period of Government. There is nothing about the programme of austerity that the British Government can pin on the EU, which is probably why this has not been tried, unlike for example Greece.
  • Asylum/immigration: as I have previously discussed, there are three elements here. Firstly, the UK is entirely in charge of its asylum policy and can choose who to let in and who to keep out. The same applies to non-EU immigration, which Britain is entirely in charge of. These elements comprised over 68% of immigration (together with Britons returning to the UK). The EU cannot and does not interfere with this but the balance (32%) is EU migrants. Many international companies are based in Britain that require access to the global pool of human resources to maintain their standards and profitability. On balance, basing a decision to leave the EU because of the freedom of movement of people principle and perceptions of “uncontrolled immigration” in the last decade does not appear to be justified. The unemployment rate remains at 5.8% (compared with 6.5% in Germany and 11.4% in the EU), despite a long period of intense economic and financial crisis. A critical issue that affects voter sentiment is net wages, which is determined by the companies located in Britain, as well as the public employers. If Britain were to stop EU and any other form of immigration (it is doubtful that employers would welcome this) the perceived pressures on health, housing and social services would not change since most EU immigrants would presumably remain. The exception is if such a police were to be combined with (forced) repatriation, which is unimaginable at the present time. If so, in theory Britain would have to make allowance for the 1.3 million Britons in other EU countries to return from EU countries to the UK. Verdict: possible short-term gain but likely long-term loss. The change would affect 32% of Immigration (2012 data) at the very most, but asylum and immigration would not end. There would only be perceptible changes, if a policy of terminating EU immigration were to be combined with deportation. I cannot imagine the average British voter wanting this or the consequences of enforcing such a policy.
  • Education/schools: this is entirely the responsibility of the UK and the pressures have been decades in the making. The issue that the EU has concentrated on is harmonizing qualifications and certification to ensure greater scope for freedom of movement of workers. This is advantageous for Britons as well as for others. Verdict: no change. The children of EU migrants make-up a small percentage of all children in schools across the country. If their parents are working here, they are entitled to study in Britain unless the Government and the British electorate wishes to evoke the deportation route.

So in terms of the most important issues to UK voters, there is not a huge amount of immediate gain from Brexit, based on the top four voter priorities. I am not even going to discuss the possible losses which would be the consequence of gaining control over EU immigration. Britain is already in charge of two of the three key elements of immigration, which makes up the majority of immigration. It is an island, which gives it more protection than others in the era of globalisation. The fear that there is uncontrolled immigration from the EU is overdone. When the economic downturn started, many EU migrants simply left the UK of their own accord and the migratory pattern turned towards Germany instead, the only EU country experiencing strong economic growth. When the UK economy started growing again in mid-2014, the immigration trend started reversing (though probably influenced by the A2 countries,namely Romania and Bulgaria). In any case, if the unemployment rate is 5.8% and decreasing, it is worth asking the question: who is employing the EU migrants and benefiting from their contribution to the economy, to tax inflows and to company profits? Might the answer be Britons and Britain? If the real issue is decreasing net wages and benefits in Britain, the question is who is gaining from this development? Might the answer be certain segments of British society?

Below I address the remaining voter priorities:

  • Europe/EU: The issue which the EU insist on is that the freedom of movement of people (as well as goods, services, capital) be maintained, allowing all EU citizens to travel for tourism, study, work and retirement purposes. Many, if not most Britons, enjoy some or all of these freedoms in one way or another. 1.3 million Briton live in other EU countries, and a large number travel, work, study, invest (e.g. second homes and pension funds) or retire in EU countries. This is something which is currently taken for granted at present. I believe the loss will be felt much more rapidly and keenly than most British voters may realise.
  • Unemployment: leaving the EU might result in less European migrants, but it would not put an end to EU immigration or lead to zero unemployment. British-based enterprises compete globally for many skills essential to maintain productivity and innovation. I doubt that there would be a significant reduction in qualified labour coming from the EU.It is not certain that the agricultural, tourism, hospitality, etc. businesses would be able to satisfy their needs simply from UK-based sources. There might be a reduction in less qualified labour and thus in unemployment but this is unlikely to be more one or two percentage points and will lead to other pressures. Verdict: possible short term gain but likely long term loss.
  • Benefits: very few EU migrants claim benefits. Immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than UK natives during 2000-2011. They are also less likely to live in social housing than the UK born population. EU migrants of working age who are not students, not in employment and receive some kind of state benefit, amount to 39,000 or less than 1% of all foreign nationals in the UK and 1% of all EU nationals in the UK.  Recent analysis of 23 out of 27 EU countries shows that there are at least 30,000 Britons claiming unemployment benefit in countries around the EU. In other words 2.5% of Britons in other EU countries are claiming unemployment benefits, roughly the same as EU nationals doing the same in Britain. The numbers are tiny: the political and media coverage of this issue is completely disproportionate. If this is the case, an even smaller sub-set of them are living in Britain for benefit tourism/abuse purposes. Verdict: no change (but one less emotive topic for certain parts of the media and politicians to bang their biased drum about).
  • Taxation: the UK is in entirely in charge of all its taxes, including Corporate Income Tax, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and VAT. Verdict: no change.
  • Housing: The UK is entirely in charge of its housing policy, construction, planning system, etc. There would be fewer EU immigrants, which might affect the housing situation in terms of rent levels and house prices. However, this would only be a marginal effect since the trend in housing supply, demand and pricing is a long term trend of over 30 years and any nationality is able to buy property in Britain. I have already referred to the fact that fewer recent immigrants claim benefits and live in social housing than the UK born population. Verdict: no change. I have written the first of my blog posts comparing the British and German housing systems to illustrate aspects of this point.
  • Foreign affairs: in terms of foreign affairs this role is, to some extent, coordinated with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for specific issues. In the main, each EU nation does its own thing and Britain is no different.
  • Pensions: the UK is entirely in charge of the retirement age, contributions, qualifying years, minimum state pension pensions, etc. The EU facilitates freedom of movement of people and capital, so develops rules to ensure that if people work in different countries, that their contributions are acknowledged and count towards their overall pension entitlement. Furthermore, it seeks to ensure, under the same two freedoms, that Britons and others can receive their state pension in any of the EU-28 countries without suffering from arbitrary reductions, cancellations, fees, etc. Since many Britons enjoy their retirement in the sun and have bought second homes in other EU countries (rather more than is the case in terms of EU nationals buying properties in the UK), it would appear that to be well worth remaining in the EU.

EUroscepticism: much ado about nothing?

Ultimately, it is up for each voter to assess their personal gain or loss from staying in or leaving the EU. Based on the analysis above, the anti-EU sentiment is much ado about nothing, as far as the most important issues to voters are concerned, except for the freedom of movement of people. The EU has helped to secure so many rights and opportunities across all 28 nations that it is hard to imagine life without them. It is not simply that not much would change overnight. A moment of reflection on what would be rolled back as a result of leaving the EU, should show just how much we perceive as being normal and do not even actively consider. The fact is that we usually do not miss that which we take for granted… until it is no longer there.

Ricardo Pinto, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU

 

 

 

 

 

 


Freedom of Movement of People and Recent Immigration Trends in Britain and Germany

There is a great deal of discussion about immigration in Britain and Germany and the extent to which this is driven by the EU’s freedom of movement principle. In the case of the Britain, this is resulting in increasingly Eurosceptic public discourse due to perceived uncontrolled immigration and border, resulting in questions about whether to stay in the EU or  not. In the case of Germany, the concerns revolve around benefit abuse, especially the recent EU member countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, which acquired freedom of movement rights in 2014. This post examines EU and non-EU migration trends, including those from old, recent (A8) and new (A2) countries.

Recent Immigration has been at a Historical High

First things first: it must be noted that the net migration figures in Britain in the last decade are unparalleled. During the period until 1982, the UK actually experienced a net outflow of people. This means that more Britons, on balance, chose to leave Britain and were obviously received by other countries. Until 1997 there was an average net annual inflow of 50,000. With the accession to the European Union (EU) of the A8 countries (e.g. Poland, Slovakia, etc.) and, crucially, with the UK decision to allow people from these countries to work in Britain well in advance of being required to do so under the transition rules of the EU, this rose to a peak of 244,000 in 2004. It has been decreasing since then and reached 177,000 in 2012. The latest data suggest that net migration is increasing once again (209,000 in 2013), probably because of the influence of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, combined with the fact that Britain’s economy is growing once again. Since these have much smaller populations that the A8 countries, this is not likely to last long. Broadly the same trend was evident in Germany but see below for variations, particularly in recent years where net migration has taken-off.

 Asylum seekers

In a previous post, we defined the key types of immigrant; asylum seekers are basically a sub-set of immigrants. According to Eurostat data, in 2013 there were 434,450 applications made to all EU-28 countries. The largest volume of applications was to Germany (126,705 or 29.1% of all applications in the EU), France (66,265) and Sweden (54,270). The UK received the fourth largest volume of applications (29,875) but this was noticeably less than the several other EU countries (6.8%). Given the size of its population and economy, the UK received a relatively modest number of applications during a humanitarian crisis which is considered to be the worst since WWII and is concentrated on Afghanistan, Syria, and Somalia. Nevertheless, the Office of national Statistics estimates that asylum seekers accounted for around 4.5% of UK immigration. The German equivalent is bound to be higher since it approves about 30% of the applications. But the fact is that the public perception of the volumes of asylum seekers is out of kilter with reality as discussed in a separate post.

Let us be clear about this part of the immigration debate: the Conservative-led Government does not propose turn asylum seekers away and, as an aside, neither does Ukip at the present time. The same applies to the German Government as well as AfD (and as far as I know PEGIDA) in Germany. This is only as it should be in humane, modern societies. It should be stressed that although there are international conventions governing this issue, each country makes its own decisions and determines which applicants to accept or not. Neither is this an area which the EU is involved in.

Net migration

The net migration is the difference between immigration (arrivals) and emigration (departures) since all countries exhibit a degree of turnover in their population. Ultimately, in terms of social and economic, cultural and other pressures that may build-up in a country, net migration is that really matters. Given our focus on UK and Germany, Table 1 shows two contrasting trends. Germany has been experiencing a very sharp increase in net migration during the period 2009-2012, a trend which has continued up to today. In 2014, the net migration in Britain reached 260,000 and 470,000 in Germany. We have seen in the previous posts, the public perception of asylum seekers and immigration in Germany contrasts somewhat with that of the UK. This is not to imply or suggest that immigration is not an issue in public discourse in Germany – far from it. However, in terms of public perception and public discourse, it is relatively equable, except in the case of the PEGIDA movement, which is specifically targeted at Muslims (see the recent a post on this issue), though there is a chance that it will implode following the resignation of, for the lack of a better expression, its colourful ex-leader. Generally though, the contrast with UK is evident. Yet the statistics show that new migration in the same period had been declining in the UK until 2014, undoubtedly influenced by Conservative party’s target of “tens of thousands” (i.e. up to 100,000) immigrants per annum, whereas it is increasing steeply in Germany. The German population rose to 81.1 million people in 2014, the fourth annual increase in a row, boosted by the highest level of net migration in more than two decades.

Table 1: Net migration in Britain and Germany (2009-2012)

  2009 2010 2011 2012
Germany 59,634 151,599 240,377 352,174
United Kingdom 229,000 256,000 205,000 177,000

Source: Table 7c: Net migration in European Union countries, 2002-2012, House of Commons Library, 2014

There be Foreigners in EU Countries: Freedom of Movement at work

Looking at the total figures, the countries with the largest number of foreign-national residents in 2013 were Germany (7.7 million), Spain (5.1 million), UK (4.9 million), Italy (4.4 million), and France (4.1 million). The countries with largest number of foreign-born residents were Germany (10.2 million), UK (7.8 million), France (7.5 million) and Spain (6.2 million). These figures include very large numbers of Britons (1.3 million), Germans (1.4 million) and other EU nationals living in other EU countries, not least in Spain and France. EU migrants accounted for 35% of the total migrant stock in the EU countries as a whole in 2010 living, studying, working and retiring in elsewhere than in their own country. This is, after all, one of the wonderful things that are taken for granted in the EU, right?

Of  Natives and Foreigners

Another interesting dimension is the proportion of migrants relative to the overall population. The table below illustrates that, overall, the UK and Germany had very similar levels of foreign-born inhabitants (12.3% and 12.4% respectively) as a percentage of the overall population. The latest figures are around the 14% mark for both countries.

Table 2: Foreign-national and foreign-born populations of DE and UK (at 1 Jan 2013)

  Foreign National, Number Foreign National % of total population Foreign Born, Number Foreign Born % of total population Total, Number Density of Foreign Born (x per 1000)
Germany 7,696,413 9,4 10,201,192 12,4 82,020,578 123
United Kingdom 4,929,710 7,7 7,828,376 12,3 63,896,077 124

Source: Table 10: Foreign-national and foreign-born populations of EU countries, at 1 Jan 2013, House of Commons Library, 2014

It should be noted that the percentage of foreign-born populations in the UK and Germany are in fact relatively modest compared with many EU countries such as Luxemburg (42.4%) and Cyprus (23.2%), both outliers, well as others such as Belgium (15.7%), Ireland (16%), Austria (16.1%), Sweden (15.4%), etc. The percentages do not appear to be out of line with similarly developed and advanced countries. Indeed, given Britain’s extensive colonial past, unlike Germany, Ireland, etc., suggests that the percentage could have been higher still. What is out of line though is the public perception of how many foreigners there are in the UK (47% more than is really the case), Germany (24%), something which is repeated in other European countries (see a previous post on the perceptions and reality of immigration). This misalignment in public perceptions and reality is even more pronounced when it comes to estimates of Muslims: UK (76% more than is really the case) and Germany (69%).

 EU and non-EU immigration

Another important dimension is the origin of the immigrants. Eurostat data demonstrate that in the case of Germany, a notable proportion of the immigrants (14.7%) are actually citizens returning to their own country. However, half are citizens from other EU countries, with the balance (34.8%) being non-EU citizens. The distribution is somewhat different in the case of the UK (16.1%, 31.4% and 52.2% respectively). In other words, Germany has mainly EU and own nationals as immigrants, whereas the UK has a similar proportion of nationals returning home, but a much larger proportion of non-EU immigrants. This may be explained by the greater influence of the old and new Commonwealth on the migratory patterns of the UK, as well as the economic malaise of the country in 2012. However, it should be made clear (see definitions post) that the UK is fully in charge of its own borders and of its own immigration policy when it comes to UK and non-EU nationals. The latter is not the responsibility of the EU.

The EU-related immigration (31.6% of the total) is the key element that the UK not in charge of because of the principle of freedom of movement of people, one of the four basic freedoms of the EU. Based on the data from 2012, the bulk of the immigration issue, as far as the UK is concerned, was not the EU and its freedom of movement, contrary to what one might conclude from the current political debate and the media reporting in the UK. The contrast with Germany, which does receive more than half of its immigrants from other EU countries, could not be greater. The German Chancellor and the President have gone out of their way to make it clear that asylum seekers and immigrants generally, including Muslims, are a part of the country. They have also made it clear on numerous occasions that the EU’s freedom of movement principle is not up for renegotiation.

Table 3: Immigration by Citizenship in DE and UK (2012)

Citizens of own country % Other EU countries % Non EU Countries % Total
Germany 87,245 14.7 298,541 50.4 206,389 34.8 592,175
United Kingdom 80,196 16.1 157,554 31.6 260,290 52.2 498,040

Source: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_imm2ctz&lang=en

The EU Accession Countries

The EU freedom of movement principle affected about a third of the immigration flows, whereas half were subject to immigration controls in Britain. Furthermore, the recent Accession countries that have been subject of such extensive debate in the media and political circles (the so-called A8 or Eastern European countries that acceded to the EU in 2004, including Poland, Slovakia, etc.) actually made-up 12% of all immigrants in 2012.

The above point reinforces the extent to which the immigration debate in the UK is distorted, though A8 immigration was certainly important during 2004 – 2010. Based on the data available relating to 2012, half of the immigration flows are entirely controlled by the UK and are subject to border controls. This has little to do with the recent Accession or “new” EU countries. Presumably the public is not particularly interested in reducing immigration from the “old” EU (15) countries such as France, Italy and Germany (i.e. 17.1% of the total). In terms of the recent members that are now eligible to work throughout the EU, namely Bulgaria and Romania (the so-called A2), 2014 started with a trickle of immigrants, but this increased steadily, so that net immigration is on the up. Consequently, the EU immigration debate has increasingly focused on the A2 countries where, in addition to the numbers involved, the implicit debate is often about the Roma communities from those countries.

Let us be clear about one thing: it is not the EU’s freedom of movement principle that has historically contributed the largest percentages of immigrants to the UK, except for a short period of time (2004 – 2010). This period coincided with a concerted effort on the part of the UK to actively court people from the A8 countries to migrate to the UK. The UK had made a political and economic decision that A8 immigrants were needed to sustain the economic boom and associated prosperity of Britain at the time. These decision cannot be used to subsequently blamed either the EU (after all, the transition arrangements were in place and the UK chose not to make use of them) or the people who heeded these official overtures from the duly elected British government of the time. Nothing can change these facts. The real immigration story, if there is one, is, has always been and will continue to be the old/new Commonwealth (ca. 26%) and the Other Foreign countries (another ca. 26%), as illustrated in the Table below.

Table 4: Immigration to the UK by Nationality, 2009-2012

2009 2010 2011 2012 % 2012
British 96 93 78 80 16.1
European Union 167 176 174 158 31.7
EU 15 82 76 83 85 (17.1)
EU A8 68 86 77 60 (12.0)
EU Other 17 14 14 13 (2.6)
Non EU 303 322 314 260 52.2
Old Commonwealth 30 31 29 31 (6.2)
New Commonwealth 141 156 151 98 (19.7)
Other Foreign 132 135 135 131 (26.3)
Total 567 591 566 498 100

Source: Table 2a: Immigration to the UK by nationality, 2000-2012, House of Commons Library, 2014

EU15: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Irish Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden; A8: Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, namely Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia; EU other: includes all other EU 27 countries (Croatia joined the EU later); Old Commonwealth: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa; and New Commonwealth: all Commonwealth countries not part of the Old Commonwealth, including those of the Indian sub-continent and African Commonwealth countries other than South Africa.

It would be great if we would refrain from denying the importance and value in economic, cultural and social terms of the EU’s principle of freedom of movement (of people, goods capital and services) to all European citizens. This applies particularly to Britons and Germans, who are themselves far from averse from making full use of the freedom of movement to study, work, retire and invest (e.g. second / retirement homes) elsewhere in the EU. For its part, the German government has always nailed its colours firmly to the mast, as have all other EU nations: freedom of movement is the foundation of the EU and is simply not up for discussion. To put it crudely, Britain can either like it or lump it, otherwise it has to leave the EU.

To make a decision about leaving the EU on the basis of a “swamping” by EU citizens or in response to “benefit tourism” (I a plan a separate post in the so-called abuse of benefits) and other vague anti-EU sentiment may make for good short-term domestic politics in a pre-election period but it is not logical or in Britain’s long term interest. I agree that there are criticisms to be levelled at the EU and that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the role of the nation-state and the principle of subsidiarity but the EU immigration debate is being used excessively to castigate the EU.

Conclusions

I am only too aware of the quotation: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” I do not expect all readers to be swayed let alone persuaded by the statistics that I have presented above, not least because some of them are quite dated as per the December 2014 House of Commons Library report used. I am sure that others can and probably will make an even more convincing case that Britain continues to be “swamped” by immigrants, that the key problems are the EU and the freedom of movement and that the sooner the UK takes full control over its borders and immigration policies, the better the UK will be much the better for it. So I only ask for consideration to be given to the following issues:

  • The numbers of asylum seekers has declined to pretty small numbers in the UK but an opposite trend is taking hold in Germany, especially because of the Syrian crisis. The numbers accepted by Britain are relatively small but larger in Germany. There is broad consensus about the importance of receiving asylum seekers as long as they are not bogus.
  • The UK had a major surge of net immigration during 2004-2010 and much of this was from the new EU member countries. The UK did not have to let in immigrants from the A8 countries at the time but chose to actively court them to come, live and work in the UK so as to satisfy its overheating labour market and prolong its economic boom at the time. The flows have declined dramatically since 2010, as has overall net migration to the UK but are increasing again, not least because the British economy is growing once again and Britons are employing the immigrants.
  • There is now significantly less immigration from the A8 countries such as Poland, so the debate has moved on to the A2 countries, namely the Bulgarians (population of 7 million) and Romanians (population of 22 million) and implicitly the Roma community (population of 10-12 million in the whole of Europe). The debate on welfare tourism and EU’s freedom of movement will continue in the UK and Germany, though in the latter case it focuses on specifically on benefit fraud/abuse.
  • The majority of immigrants to the UK in 2012 were either UK nationals or non-EU immigrants from the Commonwealth (68.3%) and beyond. This is an issue which the British government is entirely responsible for and exclusively in charge of its own borders. It is not an EC/EU issue.
  • Unlike the UK, the number of net migrants is peaking in Germany, contributing to population growth in the last four years. There is a lively debate about immigration and the PEGIDA movement has been growing. However, there is nowhere near the same degree of emotive talk on immigration, of being swamped, of uncontrolled immigration and so on, despite having almost identical levels of foreign-born population and absorbing increasing levels of immigration.

At the end of the day, the issue is not so much about numbers but about perceptions, emotions, geographical concentrations, etc. There are very real stresses and strains in society at large in Britain and Germany and immigration is a contributor to them. The politicians and media are tapping into those voter concerns but merely debating the symptoms of those concerns by focusing almost exclusively on the ills of the EU, the freedom of movement of people (but not capital, of course) and EU immigration. Would life suddenly be that much better in terms of housing, education, health, wages, employment, benefits, taxes, social services, environment, transportation, etc. as a result of leaving the EU (see the related post on the British Question)? Since the EU has either limited or no responsibility at all for almost all these I very much doubt it. The real causes of the stresses and strains, greatly exacerbated by austerity in Britain and long-term real reductions in net incomes in Germany, will be the topic of future blog posts. I believe that the real causes are to be found much closer to home than either politicians or much of the media care to acknowledge, especially in the build-up to a General Election.

Ricardo Pinto, AngloDeutsch™ Blog, www.AngloDeutsch.EU