Starmer may be considering a youth mobility framework with the EU whereby those aged up to 30 may under certain conditions live and work in Europe and vice versa. This sounds like progress, but needs to go further.
Erasmus membership is another mutually beneficial scheme, which is cheaper than the Turing Scheme and more affordable. Politicians are not talking about that. Additionally, the mobility deal actually neglects Britain’s middle aged and (aging) population long term in more ways than one.
Loss of mobility frameworks
Firstly, thousands if not millions of British and European citizens of all ages had their lives disrupted by Brexit in economic or emotional terms.
Job losses, business losses and plans to retire in sunny Spain or elsewhere went up in smoke for many. A large pension pot is required for third country nationals.
It is typically middle aged people who face a double burden of support for children and elderly relatives yet so many lost their livelihoods at that crucial age. Re-establishing themselves in a job market which favours younger people poses another challenge.
We have not recovered from those losses which continue to bite into our lives and futures.
Another threat on the horizon: declining birth rates
This week, a report was published on Britain’s aging population and its long term consequences.
Brad Young explained British women are having fewer children than any other time on record. As a result, we’re stumbling into an economic crisis as a result. Another crisis on top of Brexit related damages is all we need now.
The average number of children born to a woman in England and Wales dropped to 1.44 in 2023 which is the lowest level since records began in 1938.
In practise, that means higher taxes, smaller pensions, weaker public services and an older retirement age. Young described the scenarios as ‘ the manifesto of a party without a chance of making it to office’. If Britons continue along these lines and have fewer children, these are the economic policies we would ‘vote for’ according to experts cited in Sky News.
“If we’re not procreating, then there’s nobody to pay taxes, so it’s a ticking timebomb”, said Joeli Brearley, founder of mums’ advocacy group Pregnant Then Screwed.
“The proportion of Britons who work and pay taxes is shrinking while the proportion of retired people taking out of the public purse is growing, putting a strain on public finances.”
There is another way…
Immigration of course, the necessary but now controversial formula to redress this balancer, which Starmer must publicly denounce as much as he can in order to satisfy the cries of the far right. The recent developments of the UK-EU Youth Mobility discussion are clouded with the vestiges of this necessary narrative to silence Farage. The EU wanted it to go further.
Yet if we look at this more widely, immigration has benefits. What about the skills a human being brings into this country? These may not be as economically powerful as the financial resources of a non-dom or other member of the elite, but they are skills nevertheless which contribute to our tax revenues and our society. Red tape surrounding immigration may prevent many refugees from working here for six months plus, for example doctors. Other migrants bring in skills in culture and the arts, which we should not ignore. There are those who want to learn. The recent documentary aired in Channel 4, Go Back to Where You Came From, revealed examples of refugees fleeing danger whose only desire to live in a safe country and work. A Syrian heading for Sweden to train as a nurse even impressed a hard line Brexiteer haulage company manager.
Farage himself favours immigration from talented, rich tax avoiding ‘non-doms’ and millionaires, so much so that he works part time for a migration and tax consultancy, a recent speech in Autumn 2024 having netted him a fee of 40,000 pounds.
A very easy way to win resources to fill the skills gap would be for Britain to rejoin the single market. This would give Britons opportunities to work in Europe again and mend the economy, reduce prices for goods and food, and give families breathing space again to reconsider their choices to have less children. Young women nowadays, some of whom were interviewed in Young’s article, state it is hard enough to look after yourself in this challenging economy, never mind a family.
Labour could easily use and explain the important caveat: article 7 of the citizens’ directive, whereby any Europeans coming to the UK must prove possession of independent financial resources (job/savings) and comprehensive medical insurance to stay for over 3 months so as not to be a burden. Britons likewise would have to prove these prerequisites to work in Europe. This could also re-open the lost markets in Switzerland, where Britons are required to have work permits for any projects or employment in most cases. With these provisions in place, which Theresa May never adopted in 2015, Starmer could solve multiple problems simultaneously. This common model is easier to implement than the many separate deals he would have to do on various trading frameworks. He could also call out and silence the cries of Farage, exposing his narratives employed in the Brexit campaign as absolute falsification for what it was – cherry picking. An MEP in the service of Britain had a duty to advise the government at the time, Cameron, that these laws to control migration from Europe were available for our use, yet Farage chose to keep these legal controls on immigration very silent. Blast this piece of truth all over your social media: Farage vs Law Grad: Immigration.
Tony Blair said in the run up to Brexit that Britain could control immigration better than it was during that government. Perhaps Blair needs to make an appointment with Starmer to explain things to him. Farage had no practical answer for this other than a loud blast, blaming Blair for open borders. The Norway model, which Farage once favoured on camera, could work out for Britain.
No pressure for the elite
Farage and some rich elites who backed Brexit will not feel any of that added pressure, their own old age and probably that of their families secured by vast wealth. It is the ordinary man or woman in the street who will feel that pain. Yet the right elites have chosen to poison the narratives on immigration, outlining it purely as an economic burden, and buy the minds of the public through powerful social media campaigns funded by their supporters.
Our tanking economy, brought about by Brexit, does not encourage families to have children or reduces the number of children they can afford. Neither does it help people to save for their own old age.
Christian principles as a marketing strategy
Farage has of course sided with anti-abortionists recently, claiming women do not have the right to control their own bodies. The Reform Leader is joining forces with a US-based Christian legal group, which campaigns for abortion to be outlawed around the world.
It seems freedom of speech is ok if it is for the most right wing attitudes. However, freedom of speech and choice for women goes out of the window:
Under Labour, ‘safe access buffer zones’ have come into effect within a 150 metre radius around abortion clinics, from 31 October 2024, in a move intended to bring in stronger safeguards for women accessing the services. Anyone found guilty of breaking the law faces an unlimited fine. (Max Colbert)
If Farage is so concerned about pro-life considerations, what about the families who now cannot afford to implant embryos they froze because of the costs of bringing up another child referenced by Young’s article?
Liz Truss’s and Kwasi Qwarteng’s outlandish risky policies pushed the cost of living crisis into further highs while Brexit had already damaged the economy, increasing costs of many products and forcing families to turn to food banks.
Farage does not stick up for the rights of freedom of speech for climate change protesters nor for any other Christian principles (love thy neighbour) when it comes to helping desperate migrants.
How many women may choose abortion due to economic pressures? Lots. Whatever the reason, women deserve freedom of choice and should not be pressured.
Kerry Abel, chair of the UK campaign group Abortion Rights, said of the ADF’s work: “Anti choice rhetoric is fundamentally about controlling women. This is why it has been co-opted by right-wing groups…We unite with the broad and diverse pro-choice majority to say bans off our bodies and no rollbacks here”. (ibid, Max Colbert.)
Clearly, there’s too much censorship going on, whether overt or indirect. Direct censorship happens when the truth is manipulated or falsified. Musk and the elites are implementing that plan with tools which a few decades ago would be beyond our imagination. The indirect censorship continues to manifest itself in the psychological restraints Starmer places on his own policies, fearful of the consequences of any deviation from the hard stance on immigration and mobility frameworks. Only a dose of realism and truth would help to solve matters and we’re a long way off from that. Starmer must go further for all our sakes and for the future foundations of the British economy. It would also be fair to say that perhaps even the survival of his own part in office depends on this. Recent events with Trumpian narratives around the position of Zelensky as a dictator have given the world an expose of his falsifications. It is time for the government to firmly deconstruct the narratives of Farage by injecting much needed truths into the political debate. This could ultimately win back the trust of the voting public.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
