United Kingdom and Migration.

 The daily news of channel crossings by people illegally trying to migrate to the United Kingdom is regular feature that continues to cause not only tensions between Britain and France but evokes intense debate within British society. Turmoil in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere has fuelled the migration of people seeking to assert their refugee status to seek asylum in the UK. Before one deals with the current refugee crisis it is important to see the history of migration in the UK. 

Since Roman times, as an example, Londonium, as London was called, was a melting pot of many ethnic people. Like most modern countries before the advent of rigid borders it was common for people to move around. In the mid 1800's there were immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Russian Jews and even 1000 Africans who had sided with the British in the American War of Independence and been relocated to Britain. The table below shows the migration pattern from 1800-1945 and then from 1945 to 2010.

Migrant group	Migration 1800–1945 (145 years)	Migration 1945–2010 (65 years)
Africans	10,000	1,000,000
Americans	70,000	250,000
Arabs	10,000	290,000
Belgians	240,000	40,000
Chinese	20,000	320,000
Cypriots	2,000	80,000
French People	40,000	100,000
Germans	100,000	300,000
Hungarians	2,000	38,000
Irish	1,500,000	700,000
Italians	40,000	160,000
Jews	220,000	80,000
Poles	5,000	500,000
South Asians	20,000	1,000,000
West Indians	10,000	400,000
Others	50,000	1,000,000
Total migration	2,339,000	6,231,000
Average migration per year	16,131	95,862

It may be noted that the Alien Act of 1905 and then the Alien Restrictions Act of 1914 slowed down immigration in to Britain. In some cases these acts, especially that of 1914 caused a reduction of Germans and Jews, many of whom then immigrated to United States. 

While many immigrants were fleeing persecution and turmoil, there was also labor shortages in some major segments of British economy which created the impetus for bringing in foreigners. This was nothing new as we had seen through the British colonising years that labor movements were encouraged by British overlords to meet the demands of shortages. Needless to say some of largest owners of the slave trade were British merchants even though few if any slaves were brought into what is Britain today. Slaves were taken to what is today the West Indies and from then on into America, Cuba, Latin America and elsewhere. 

Around the mid 1700's there was a shortage of seaman for the ever growing merchant fleet of vessels that plied between the colonies and Britain. In order to meet this demand, for instance, the British East India Company employed Indian 'lascars' or seamen who were placed in port cities of Britain and were perhaps the first Indians to migrate to the Britain. It was common in those days for English captains of ships to employ Bengali and Goan cooks and then these captains retired and settled back in England it was quite normal to bring their cooks and even 'ayahs' (maids) with them. Records show that in the mid 1700's there were close to 40,000 Indians in Britain and they ranged from lascars, to cooks, students, and emerging Indian businessmen. Indeed one such cook, Sake Dean Mohammed, who was from Bengal went one to open and own in 1810, what is believed to be the first Indian restaurant in London with the name "Hindoostane Coffee House". 

From the mid 1950's Britain started to grant independence to many of its colonies and it was believed that this might slow down the immigration. However, this coincided with a rebuilding of UK's infrastructure, after the war, and a relocation of a large number of British colonial officers and personnel. This created shortages in the labor market and Britain to bring in workers for the transport and building sectors. The added benefit of workers from the Commonwealth countries (former British colonies). was that many of them were not averse to working longer hours and/or night shifts. Indian and Pakistani workers flocked to areas like Lancashire and Yorkshire to fill the jobs in the textile industry, and to London for the transport industry and Slough for the food industry. 

By 1962-65 a flood of resentment swelled amongst 'white' British people who felt these immigrants were taking away their jobs. Subsequently on the back of Conservative Party pressure in this period various Acts were passed by Parliament to control immigration culminating in the 1968 Immigration Act which allowed immigration only to people who had 'a substantial connection; to the UK.  Anti immigrant sentiment remained high as evidenced by the right wing leader Enoch Powells 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968. 

With the Conservative Party's sweeping election victory in 1970 immigration was expected to slow down. However, political upheaval in Uganda, under Idi Amin, resulted in an influx of British subjects who had been granted special status under the 1948 Independence Act, were admitted into the UK. This was on the backdrop of the 1972 Immigration Act being debated and passed where by automatic entry for Commonwealth citizens was seriously revered and only skilled people already having been offered a job in UK and/or who could prove their parents or grandparents were British citizens were to be allowed in. All other entries were subject to the will of the British government. 

Contrary to the ultra conservative views of Powell and his supporters immigrants were filling job vacancies that 'white' British people were either not prepared to do, (cleaners, baggage handlers, unskilled labor) or were in sectors where there were chronic shortages, like the National Health Service. The NHS which has been created in 1948 really mushroomed its services in the late 1950's and was seriously short in doctors and nurses. In 1970 it was estimated that 33% of junior doctors positions and 44% of nursing positions were filled by immigrants. In sense this influx of people for the former colonies was like what famous author described as 'reverse colonisation' and has remained source of heated debate to this day.

In the late 1970's civil wars in the Horn of Africa and in Biafra created a new form of crisis where people displaced by conflict while not eligible for immigration felt they could arrive at a UK port and seek asylum. In 1951 the United Nations and passed a convention on Refugees and most countries were signatories to this convention and subsequent Protocol of 1967. Thus there is a clear distinction between people who seek to immigrate versus people who claim refugee status and/or seek asylum. The recent crisis in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have created a influx into Europe and eventually Britain of asylum seekers and is the fraught with controversy.

The issue of refugees is emotionally charged and controversial and needs to be discussed even if some of the aspects of this debate are uncomfortable. Indeed there is the humanitarian aspect as enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention and the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights which gives every human the right to seek asylum from persecution and prevents recipient countries from returning asylum seekers to countries where the dangers they escaped from exist. These protocols establish the definition of a refugee and while the UNCHR was entrusted with a large body of the administrative and humanitarian protection of refugees, contracting states are obligated to protect and care for refugees. 

One of the essential responsibilities placed on a refugees was that he would seek refuge in the first country where he arrives and if this country has an absence of the conditions he/she are escaping from shall be considered his country of abode. This a key aspect of the dispute between UK and EU countries, particularly France because UK believes France is 'pushing' the refugees to cross the English Channel into UK. In the same view there is a common feeling that many of the refugees are 'asylum shopping' by not staying in the first safe country where they arrived and choosing preferred countries they would like to settle in. Whether this 'asylum shopping' is a personal choice or a choice made for them by the smugglers who profit from the asylum trade is not fully certain.

There is then the element of genuine refugees who face persecution and the danger of death and those who are essentially 'economic refugees'. Many of the refugees feel, as is the case of Afghan refugees, that since many of them worked for NATO, including British, forces now with the Taliban in control these countries 'owe' them the obligation of protection and settlement. Let us take the example of Afghan refugees as a test case to highlight the complexities of the refugee debate.

Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in 1980s both Iran and Pakistan have housed millions of refugees. Particularly in the case of Pakistan, which at the peak had close to 6 million refugees, the refugee camps became the recruiting ground from where the many militias who fought the Soviets emerged to eventually oust the invaders. The refugee situation did not ease as a bitter civil war followed and then the Taliban takeover, who themselves were ousted by the US and its allies in 2003. Through all these phases the refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran remained full and currently it i estimated that there are close to 3.5 million refugees in Pakistan and 2 million in Iran. 

In 2021 total internally displaced people within Afghanistan was 3.5 million of which 677,000 are said of have left the country, mainly for Pakistan and Iran and Europe. UNHCR registration of Afghan refugees is not complete in many ways and stands at 2.2 million, thus causing much confusion on the actual numbers. UK, as apart of the withdrawal from Afghanistan took in 7,000 Afghan nationals and it is estimated another three to four thousand Afghan asylum seekers have crossed the Channel. Since the late 1990's total Afghan refugees settled in Europe, including UK are 570,000, of which about 40,000 arrived from Afghanistan after the withdrawal. 

At the peak US and NATO, and their non NATO allies, had 132,000 troops in Afghanistan, in 2011, while UK at not time had more than 10,000 troops. Of the total forces the US generally had close to 80% in Afghanistan with UK having around 8% of the total. One has to question whether the 570,000 'new' refugees escaping retribution from the Taliban are all political refugees who worked for foreign forces and thus feel their life is in danger. This does lead one to assume a large portion of the asylum seekers are really economic refugees who do not necessarily fall within the spirit and the letter of the law that the 1951 Convention and the Protocol of 1967!

The argument runs that because the Western powers left Kabul in a hurry there was no due process available for these persons, who are now asylum seekers, to legally seek immigration to the West. In fairness there is weight to this argument and one has to conclude that UK, US and their allies did little to think this process through.

The first place of safety for many of the refugees was and has been Pakistan and Iran. Why didn't the Western powers reinforce the administrative structure of these refugee camps and work with both Iran and Pakistan to deal with the refugees. They could then have set up processing centres in these camps to process the various possible cases for legitimate immigration. It would also have allowed them to create refugee camps with good facilities to house these refugees and reduce the incentive for them to fall prey to the smugglers? 

Secondly, Britain is right in its argument that France and some other EU countries should not 'push' the refugees on to cross the Channel. While the rules of first country are clear and all the refugees crossing the channel are violating the rules the problem is that in many cases the first safe country of entry for these refugees is Belarus. It is obvious that Belarus has adopted a policy of moving the refugees on to other European countries and is perhaps the base from which the people smugglers operate. 

Thirdly, the argument that former 'helpers' of foreign forces are still at risk in Afghanistan needs to be fully investigated. Indeed to say there is no one at threat would be flippant but it would also be silly to argue that all members of the former Afghan government and armed forces are targets. If indeed there are elements within the Taliban government who are targeting such people then an engagement should take place with the Taliban to correct the situation and countries like Pakistan can be asked to help in this process. 

Nothing in this suggests that asylum seekers should be sent back into the English Channel or other wise be abandoned. Humanitarian assistance but be accorded to all people who are at risk, this is beyond question. Looking ahead would it be impossible to build housing and services in say Pakistan and Iran and other neighbours of Afghanistan where the refugees can be housed and looked after. One would suspect it would cost less than trying to settle them in UK or Europe. This would also create the basis of repatriating those refugees who sought asylum and did not qualify to these new housing complexes within the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan. It would allow the very few genuine cases of asylum seekers to be processed and in time allow EU and UK to establish processing countries in the refugee camps and housing complexes adjacent to Afghanistan.

Addressing such a delicate issue is not easy but Europe and UK need to establish a new form of thinking and approach to dealing with asylum seekers. Sadly the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol did not create and solution for mass asylum seekers who are either economic asylum seekers or people who would not qualify for entry. In sense all those conventions suggested was that those who do not qualify would continue to languish in refugee camps in the final country they arrived in! Those conventions were designed to deal with a limited form of refugee crisis that emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. Today we face a different world with different challenges and while we would like to end strife and war the reality is it exists and displaces people. Having a comprehensive approach to deal with such displacement with compassion is very important. 

Trump's Trade War.

President Trump, as candidate Trump, touted the unfairness of US trade relations with the rest of world. His attacks, principally on China and later on NAFTA, were then seen as media ploy to make the US disfranchised voter to feel they had an ally heading for the White House. Trump the businessman was seen by his largely myopic US centric base as the apostle of business acumen and if he said that China was 'raping America' then he must know what he is talking about. For those who live and breathe international trade his rants were seen as something that will mellow when he sees the facts.

However, as we have learned the facts for Donald J Trump as simply as he wants to see them. With a panache for off the cuff policy making, usually encompassed in the 140 word limitation of Twitter, President Trump has launched a trade war the consequences of which, while damaging to the demons as he sees them, will also severely impact the very base who believed that Trump the businessman knows what he is doing. Raising tariffs, even in the absence of any retaliation fromUS trading partners, will raise the cost of goods for the end user within the US. The aluminum and steel tariff alone would raise the price of finished products and considering a large percentage of the aluminum imported by the US is the high grade aluminum which they do not produce themselves, the protection the tariff seeks is just not there.

Now to expect that levying tariffs on foreign goods will have no repercussions is naive. China, the European Union and others will impose their own set of tariffs on US goods. China,Mexico, Canada and the EU together import about $140 billion of US agricultural products, all of which will be hit by the trade war. While in the scheme of a trillion dollar business this may seem a drop in the ocean, but importantly it affects the rural base of the US economy and a farming crisis, however small with a large economy, cannot look good for the politics. Yes it is true the effects of a trade war are never immediate but more like a slow motion melt down, it is also correct that once a trade war begins to take root into the economic cycle it takes that much longer to stop the trade war and then to reverse its impact.

On broader note, the trade imbalance is a misnomer to be seen in isolation to the over all cash surplus or deficit (as the case may be) when considering that nations not only trade in goods but also provide services and more importantly have their companies in each others economies operating as 'domestic' companies. Take a US cereal manufacturer with operations in Europe; it has production and marketing facilities in Europe which may not be important grains from the US but their profits end up going back to the US economy. In addition there is a plethora of service industry activity overseas, from banking to engineering and consulting which all provide revenue that goes into the US economy. When we account for these we notice that the US does not run a deficit with many of the countries that President Trump alleges there is a 'trade imbalance'. Yes in terms of goods alone he would be correct, in terms of the over all economic activity between the nations he is wrong.

In very simplistic sense the average American wants to walk into Wallmart and get the best deal on say the training shoes. Now telling him you have raised the tariffs to 'make America great again' will not explain why those shoes are 25% more expensive. Telling him that you have reduced the trade deficit is fine but its not money that has gone into his pocket, and in the case of the soy bean farmer or the bourbon whiskey producer your trade battle has cost him his job so the idea of even buying a training show is now out of the question.

It is likely that a large measure of the trade imbalances were unfair to the US, and in isolation to the overall economic balance between nations you may well want to negotiate and fine tune the agreements. Launching nuclear trade war with the idea to get a better deal is really akin to lighting up the forest and then using a hose pipe to drench the fire out. Trade wars never work and unless Trump feels he can rewrite history and somehow his business acumen far exceeds the logic of years of economic theory, we should be bracing ourselves for a recession the like of which has not been seen.

Brexit and its impact.

In a close vote the Britons have spoken; they want out of the EU, want to take charge of their own country and its destiny and in the process have created a scenario where the possibilities are endless and the outcomes less than certain. The outcome of leaving the European Union while now inevitable has shown that Britain is a very divided country, surprising many who knew it would be a close vote but the outcome was not entirely expected. So what happens next.

Britain has two years to negotiate an exit deal from the EU, and if there is extension granted to this process then leaving without a deal would spell its own set of problems. This is much like a possible lengthy divorce proceeding, trade agreements to be unwound, new agreements to be made with partners like the US and Japan without the EU umbrella and the key aspects of preparing the financial disengagement costs between Britain and the rest of the EU. Most likely two years is not enough to hammer out the divorce agreement after a 43 year marriage and some EU members might well simply say that you elected to leave the marriage then do so without a favourable exit deal or an extension.

The effect of Brexit is wide ranging, one the one hand there is a strong possibility of a Nexit (Netherlands seeking an exit), and the right wing in France will push for a similar referendum with other members testing the mood for their electorate. In a sense politically the EU will feel stronger as a partner who was not entirely on board with the long term vision of the EU is now out. The flip side is that Germany may remain the only strong EU member wanting a stronger united Europe, while France, Netherlands and Denmark leading the charge for a looser Union arrangement. In essence the main problem for Britain was immigration law and they had wished a more Australia type point system on immigration rather than the current policy. EU leaderships stubborn stance on revising the policy then opened the pandoras box to a plethora of other issues resulting in Brexit.

The key question is will Britain benefit from this decision. There cannot be a serious sensible answer to this because a great deal will depend on the moving parts of the business environment. Yes emotionally the idea of 'winning back the country' has its own charm; but does this put bread on the table and create a strong economy? Personally, I believe till the exit deal is not worked out and new partnership agreements worked out over the next two years the British economy will remain depressed and the economic environment uncertain. A strong British economy will fundamentally rest upon two things:

1. Will the private sector in Britain take advantage of the lesser legislation (from EU) to invest heavily into the economy?

2. How successful will Britain be in negotiating new agreements with the US, Japan and the EU that cover trade, taxes and investments.

The best bet for Britain is that private sector investment will offset the effect of big business moving out of Britain as Brexit takes away the advantage for these manufacturers, like Nissan, to produce cars in Britain. Job losses from these closures will not be the only negative as such measures will effect the secondary and tertiary manufacturing sectors that support the factors supply chain. Can the private sector be strong enough to negate some of this effect is still questionable.

The question of negotiating new trade deals and investment and tax agreements is a more tricky matter. Britain, while the worlds fifth largest economy, now will negotiate from a weaker platform. These agreements are tedious and in some cases require multi level approvals, like in the US, and therefore a three to five year period is not unreasonable before this is sorted out. Britain might want to have a loose partnership agreement with the EU so as to not upset the existing relationship with EU too much, but I suspect that the European leadership may not be that accommodating on accepting such a partnership on terms too favourable to Britain.

If and only if, Britain can over come these two challenges that I have mentioned than perhaps in a period of five years from now Britain may well emerge from the this decision more stable and perhaps stronger. However, one must speculate that stronger does not mean stronger than the EU, but stronger from the position the country has been thrown into now.

In the interim what this means for business and the common man in Britain is that there will be a period of three to five years of uncertainty, higher consumer prices, more unemployment, lower investment into new businesses and the financial markets being in turmoil. While Britain will over haul their own immigration law and perhaps reduce the impact on the large number of EU citizens currently working in UK, there will be shrinking of the financial sector with job losses, manufacturing industry slow down. Yes a weaker pound will mean competitive exports but will this be substantial remains to be seen.

To me at a very personal level it is surprising that the issue of introducing a point system immigration system has been blown up to the extent that Brexit became a reality. In a sense this is a failure of intellect to emotion, a stubborn EU leaderships success over the voice of reason and this lack of flexibility will be the test for the EU in how it handle discontent in its own camp.