“Remain”
Last time, I started to comment on the mayor argument “immigration” of the „Leave“- campaign. I ended the comment with questioning this campaign claiming that it is too one-sided. There are more fields of interest that should be taken into account when it comes to decide whether a Brexit is reasonable or not. In order to bring some light into this dark forest of opinions, accusations, arguments and theories, I will present now reasons for the “Remain”- campaign.
Boris Johnson and Co. insist on the fatal impact the EU economy has on the British. Since the EU finds herself as subject to an economic crisis the last few years, they see the EU market as one of the biggest economic threats for the UK. Leaving the EU means, in their eyes, a more stable economy. However, what they did not consider is the very likely scenario of Great Britain suffering from an economic crisis themselves and therefore an instable British market outside of the EU.
As a sociological fact, the members of the EU feel closer to their EU colleagues than to those outside the EU. In the moment of instability, a huge amount of good will is shown to allies who face problems. If Britain left, she could not expect any support from the continent anymore. Besides social support, Britain could not count with economic support from the EU neither. The EU is the biggest trade partner for the UK. If the UK wanted to stay part of the single market, it would be subject to all EU regulations and costs, but would no longer be able to influence any rules that would be imposed on her.
In order to come back to immigration, the mayor argument of the “Leave”- campaign, the remain campaign uses this point as a counter argument. The pro Brexit side wants to “take the control back” and cut immigration in order to be independent and have a flourishing economy with skilled and trained workers. However, if the UK economy prospered in the coming years, it could not do so without recruiting man force. Especially the low-salary jobs, the menial jobs, are very unpopular amongst the Britons and would need to be filled with people from outside the EU. This, then, would be workers from Africa or Asia, if EU migrants are not welcome anymore. As an example, results from the National Minimum Dataset for Social Care revealed that between six to twelve percent of the workers in the social sector in the south-east of England are non-British EU migrants. The question is, if these jobs could be filled with people of the rest of the world and at the same time to keep up the newly wanted immigration standards as high qualification and good English skills. Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, says: “Given that one of the planks of the Brexit campaign is to reduce immigration, I think it highly unlikely that they would relax controls on people entering the country to be part of the care workforce.” Which then means that the whole immigration restriction idea would be an illusion.
But let’s leave economy behind. It would be too one-sided to base the whole remain arguments on economy.
In 1976, Great Britain was the “sick man of Europe”. The fall of the Empire and the financial losses caused by the World Wars had destabilised the UK a lot. The membership of the EC supported Britain in regaining economic strength, thus wealth, and in progressing in science and social development. The “Dirty Man” got clean again.
The FPH — Faculty of Public Health lists other advantages. “Health and safety at work legislation is basically European; likewise legislation ensuring the safety of food, medicinal products and medical devices. The social chapter mandates generous maternity and paternity leave, guaranteed holidays, the 48-hour working time directive; equal rights for part-time workers and protection against unfair dismissal. All are powerful social determinants of health from which UK citizens have benefited.” As a consequence, these rights and protection would be on edge, if the UK voted for the Brexit.
This scenario is quite probable, because one knows that the leave leaders campaign with the prospect of saving up to 8 billion pound a year that are spent on the NHS — National Health Service — due to EU regulations. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has found out that a Brexit would entail that the UK spent less on public services, or, in order to weight up the money normally provided from the EU for the public health, to rises taxes. If leading figures do not value the NHS already while campaigning, it is very likely that other health and safety legislations loose importance under the “Leave” — leaders as well.
To conclude, it is very obvious that the decision of staying or leaving the EU is not only a matter of immigration. Leaving the EU would entail mayor economic risks but, for the common people even more important, would endanger the social aid which is guaranteed to them because of EU legislations. Taking the aforementioned arguments into account, I would vote for remaining in the EU.
Good Luck Great Britain on June 23rd.
Sources:
http://about-britain.com/institutions/compare-brexit-arguments.htm
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/why-the-leave-campaign-should-pray-they-dont-win/
