No Taxation Without Representation

David Cameron has just announced who will be able to vote in the forthcoming EU Referendum. The rules will exclude EU citizens who have settled in the UK, even if they've been here for a decade or more. This has some affinities with his proposed changes to welfare legislation, which would make it impossible for EU migrants to Britain to claim welfare for the first four years.

The 'principle' here seems to be that only British-born citizens have a moral right to decide on Britain's relationship to Europe. The problem here is that this is exactly the sort of narrow nationalistic thinking, turning its back on the international, global forces that connect us, that the EU was formed to transcend. It's a decision that has built into it a kind of anti-EU bias. The decision's actually been taken as an offering to Cameron's Eurosceptic wing and the right-wing press. (Imagine how the Daily Mail would react to 1m EU migrants in Britain having a say in Britain's future! Oh wait, you don't have to imagine.)

And the Eurosceptics have seized on this decision with relish. John Redwood and Liam Fox have claimed that to include EU migrants would be to 'hijack' the referendum and would be an 'unacceptable dilution of the voice of the British people'. No arguments, you notice, just the assertion of these political opinions as if they were simple facts. In fact, it's a systematic exclusion of a substantial part of the electorate who have real experience of the benefits of the EU and its principled support for the free movement of people. It significantly increases the chance of Brexit.

But EU migrants pay their taxes. (The evidence, actually, is that as a group they pay way more in taxes than they receive in benefits.) The great slogan of the American Revolution was 'no taxation without representation' - the principle that it is fundamentally unjust for a government to tax its citizens without being democratically accountable to them. So why should EU migrants not have a say in the future of the country to which they pay their taxes and in which, let's remember, they have chosen to settle? Notice that UK emigrants to Europe will get the vote: people who have chosen to leave Britain who may have spent 15 years in Spain will have more say over the future of this country than somewhere who has lived and worked and paid taxes here for a lifetime.

Here's a thought, Mr Cameron. To be consistent, why not announce this: EU migrants will not be able to claim benefits for four years - but nor will they be required to pay tax or National Insurance contributions. This would be a real incentive to promote movement in the workforce, encourage the job market to be as mobile as that for goods and services; it would reward people for their incentive in upping sticks and finding new employment in the place that's right for them. It would provide a motivation to move that would counterbalance the inertia of home and familiarity. 

Of course this would only work if there were reciprocal arrangements across Europe or we'd be a magnet for tax-avoidance, and I know you hate that. There would also have to be recompense for the tax loss this would produce for the Treasury or there wouldn't be any welfare to withhold; businesses would benefit hugely from this liberated job market, because they'd suddenly get more access to the skilled workforce from right across the continent, so it would be reasonable to expect them to pick up the shortfall.

In addition, if the quid pro quo for avoiding tax is to not benefit from our welfare system, that should apply to businesses too. Any business that avoids paying its full corporation tax in this country should also not get any kinds of benefit from the government: they should have to pay directly for any treatment their employees receive on the NHS and child benefit too; if they lay their workers off, they'll have to pay their unemployment benefits; if their employees are entitled to Housing Benefit, they'll have to provide that; and a tax-avoiding business won't be eligible to reclaim maternity pay or sick pay or anything like that; I think these migrants would probably have to pay a supplement if they go to a subsidised theatre or concert hall. Fair's fair.

This is actually the sort of madness that comes out of right-wing think tanks all the time, demolishing tax and transferring the functions of the state to private enterprise. So David Cameron should like it.

But you can see the problem, can't you, Mr Cameron? Would it be a good idea to invite large numbers of people to enter the UK - whether migrants or businesses - who would have so little stake in the country? Maybe people and businesses would move here purely for the tax breaks and they'd have little care for the civil society everyone else is building. Excluding someone from taxation and representation is to disengage them from our common culture. That doesn't sound like the recipe for a healthy society.

But you can't have it both ways. How can we expect people to come here, contribute to the workforce, contribute to our culture, contribute to the Treasury, but still tell them they have no right to contribute to decisions about what this country should be?

I am lucky. I work in academia and I know hundreds of people - students, colleagues, fellow academics - who have come from the EU to Britain and made invaluable, extraordinary contributions. I'm talking about Peter Boenisch, Margherita Laera, Vicky Angelaki, Marilena Zaroulia, Sylwia Dobkowska, Marissia Fragkou, and more and more and more. These have demonstrated every bit as much commitment to this country as I ever have. Perhaps more so: I didn't choose to come here.

It's grotesque and immoral to exclude EU migrants from this debate. It's another grim sign of how much we will risk every time David Cameron has to pander to his lunatic fringe.

Getting Europe Wrong

David Cameron has this policy which is that he's offering an in/out EU referendum after he's negotiated some reforms to its treaties and ways of working. This is a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons. Let me say why.

First, I should be clear: I'm in favour of staying in the EU, reformed or unreformed. Of course, we'd all like it to be reformed, if by reformed we mean 'better'. So 'staying in a reformed EU' sounds like a good slogan. But it's not good if it means an EU where there are no barriers to money, goods and services but there are huge barriers to the movement of people. I don't want to be in an EU where a wax replica of me has more freedom of movement than I do. 

But this policy is a typical example of Cameron's chronic short-termism. How did it come about? In the middle of the last parliament, with UKIP really hitting the Tories in the polls, it was Cameron's attempt to shore up his support. He did this by kicking the can down the road; promising an EU referendum in the next parliament. He couldn't do it in the last parliament, I guess, because the Lib Dems wouldn't have let him. So he promised it for the next one. I guess he thought he probably wouldn't get in or he'd be in coalition with the Lib Dems again and wouldn't have to act on it.

But now we're further down the road and here's the can. We have a referendum looming at some point in the next two years. This is going to be a nightmare as it is, because the press will be full of scare stories about EU bureaucracy and all the everyday racists are going to be vox popping their way into our brains. It's going to be Idiot Hour for the next two years.

And to add stupid to stupid, Cameron's also made this meaningless promise about getting reforms. Well, maybe he will get some reforms. Actually, having gained this surprise majority means he's got a pretty good mandate to demand serious reforms from the EU. Whatever they say, the EU don't want us to leave, so we probably have quite a bit of leverage at the moment. 

But still, what kind of reforms are we realistically going to get? Surely there is not the slightest chance of the EU tearing up the fundamental principle of the free movement of labour? There may be a bit of tinkering around welfare rights, but they won't be able to stop EU citizens coming here. And quite right too. The problem for Cameron is that clear and evident limits to immigration are surely the only reform that will dent the UKIP-led support for leaving the EU.

Which means that Cameron will probably come back from these negotiations with a few vague promises of reform, some of them technical and difficult to intuitively grasp. The EU's enemies will be able to scorn them very easily and it will be hard for Cameron to say 'I now recommend staying in this reformed EU' because there will be confusion and doubt over whether there have been any reforms at all.

I am fairly confident that the UK will vote to stay in. Fairly confident. But then I was fairly confident there'd be a hung parliament so what do I know? I'm concerned that the pro-EU campaign will suffer from the same lack of imagination as the No campaign in Scotland, with the same resort to scare stories and strategy of fear. Maybe this is the fate of all campaigns to preserve the status quo. But they have to start thinking now. It cannot be led by business. It should not be led by the usual faces in the political class. It can't be a matter of a few celebs. It must not be dry economics.

We need to celebrate the cultural and philosophical vision behind the EU from the moment it was founded, that dream of a great continent coming together to heal what has divided us and celebrate what connects  us, building bridges, welcoming our neighbours, learning from each other. If we can sell a few more things to each other, great, that's a bonus, but it's this glimpse of common humanity, cultural dialogue and civil rights that is at the heart of the ongoing EU project, which makes it all the more infuriating that Cameron's habitual short-termism has put it all at risk.

A Massive Waste of Time

We have a new government. Which looks much like the old government, only without any nice people in it. It's very early days but a few policy announcements were made in the campaign and have been confirmed since. Quite a lot of them are a complete waste of time.

In the campaign, Cameron promised a 'five year "tax lock"' to prevent himself from raising the level of income tax, VAT or National Insurance contributions. This is as ridiculous as Labour's policy monolith. A government really shouldn't need to legislate to stop itself doing something it doesn't want to do. If anything, it makes it look like he has tax-raising instincts that need to be forcibly restrained, like putting bromide in your own tea. It's a complete gimmick. And we know it's a gimmick because how would it work? Such an act can be repealed - which might be politically embarrassing to do, but not much more embarrassing than, say, promising not to introduce university tuition fees on the front page of your manifesto and then doing it anyway. In fact, it might make it even easier to raise taxes, because the government would be able to make some story about the economic picture being so important they have to introduce new legislation to raise taxes, thus giving a more convincing picture of national emergency. Possibly Cameron is thinking he might 'entrench' the legislation (i.e. make it difficult to repeal by including clauses to prevent that, like saying that it would require a two-thirds majority to do so or saying it can't be repealed before a certain date), but it's not clear that such entrenchments are legally enforceable. (There's a really helpful piece by Mark Elliott on this.) And, once again, if you don't want to raise taxes, Prime Minister, it might be easier just to not raise taxes.

He's going to repeal the ban on fox-hunting. Why? To appease a tiny group of core Tory voters, some MPs with rural constituencies and the PM's own 'Chipping Norton Set'. It's not going to be a popular move: a poll taken on the eve of the Boxing Day hunt in December 2012 suggested that 76% of the public are opposed to the Act's repeal (rising to 81% for deer hunting and 83% for hare coursing). It's a sign of contempt for public opinion and a nod to a world of privilege and cruelty. Given that our economy is in poor shape and there are 20 constituencies with child poverty at 39% or more, this should not be a priority. It's a waste of time.

Cameron has also committed to an EU Referendum. He doesn't want an EU Referendum. He wants to stay in the EU. It's going to be horribly disruptive and divisive; it will bring out the worst in our press, the worst in our backbenchers, and, I suspect, will damage the nature of our collective life. It will bring all other business to a standstill as MPs are off campaigning on one side or the other. It will cause a disastrous pause in investment as people hold their fire waiting to see which way we jump. All of this to preserve the status quo. It's a damaging waste of time.

And he's going to abolish the Human Rights Act. And he's appointed one of the most hated members of his senior team, Michael Gove, to do it. Why? It's true that the Government has been frustrated by some decisions taken by the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Act (particularly the barriers put in the way of deporting terrorist suspects) and Cameron has been frustrated by Strasbourg's advice that prisoners cannot be denied the right to vote. But first of all, let's not just pretend these are bad decisions. We should not just be able to deport someone without regard to their human rights. We are supposed to be better than the terrorists. And the right to vote seems to me a fundamental civil right; committing a crime does not obviously deny every aspect of your civil identity. Cameron likes to suggest that this is an example of Strasbourg being out of control and exceeding its authority, but in fact the fundamental right to vote was signed up to by the British Government in 1952. And repealing the Human Rights Act will be almost meaningless without withdrawing from the Convention on Human Rights, which would surely mean we would have to leave the Council of Europe. Without doing those things, Strasbourg would actually be stronger rather than weaker. At the moment our highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court. If we abolish the Human Rights Act, under the Convention, people are once again free to appeal to the European Court. The European Court does not force us to change our laws; we have to take account of its rulings but we are not forced to accept them - that is for the Supreme Court to decide. And anyway, what is a British Bill of Rights? What are the human and civil rights that the British don't need? Surely, if this Bill is going to be meaningful, it would have to set out a series of principles on which judges must act and how are these going to be different from the Human Rights Act? Apart from some exception for deporting terrorist suspects which will undoubtedly be eaten away at by precedents and exceptions, it'll be exactly the same as before. In which case, a huge amount of time and effort is going to go into introducing a law that is unnecessary and will leave everything where it is. It's a complete waste of time.

Why is he doing all this? Why is he going to waste weeks and months of parliamentary time on these pointless and foolish bits of legislation? Why go to so much effort to change nothing? 

The depressing answer is that David Cameron as Prime Minister is all about giving the impression of being decisive rather than being decisive, about looking like you're doing something rather than doing it. He's going to repeal the fox-hunting ban to 'send a message' to his High Tory rural backbenchers. He's going to repeal the Human Rights Act to appease his Eurosceptics. He's going to legislate for a five year tax lock, because it'll look like he's determined to cut the tax bill. And he'll put this whole country through a referendum on the EU so he can look like he's listening to what the tabloids tell us are the genuine concerns of ordinary hard-working people. All of this while food banks proliferate, child poverty deepens, crises break out in NHS A&E Departments every weekend.

This is a terrible waste of parliamentary time - as well as, inevitably, your time and my time - and a dreadful sign of the skewed party-political priorities of this public relations prime minister.

Return of the Living Dead

Look at these faces. Get used to them. We're likely to see more a lot of them over the next five years.

This is the awkward squad. These are the people that John Major called 'bastards'. The unwhippable and unrepentant, the mavericks and malcontents of the Tory benches. They are - clockwise from top left - Jacob Rees-Mogg, Peter Bone, Zac Goldsmith, Bill Cash, David Davis, John Redwood, Philip Hollobone, Philip Davies, and Jesse Norman in the middle. David Cameron has a majority of ten. And here's nine of them.

Some of them - like Bill Cash and John Redwood - have been thorns in the Tory leadership side since the early nineties. (I was rather surprised to discover that Bill Cash was still alive, if I'm honest.) Most of them are in very safe Tory seats and were returned with increased majorities. Some, but not all, are rampant Eurosceptics (Bill Cash was the leading light behind the Maastricht rebellions of the early 1990s), but others have their own agendas. Zac Goldsmith has a solid record as an environmental campaigner (what will he think if Cameron slashes funding for wind farms and green energy supplies - a policy that the Lib Dems stopped him doing in the last parliament?). David Davis resigned and stood for re-election to draw attention to the erosion of civil liberties  (what will he think if Cameron pushes forward the Communications Data Bill - the 'snoopers' charter' that the Lib Dems also blocked in the last parliament?). Jacob Rees-Mogg has long campaigned for compulsory tweed and Latin in all secondary schools (okay, I made that one up).

This is going to be tough for Cameron. As in 1992-97, Cameron's majority will probably get thinner as MPs die or become embroiled in scandal or change allegiance. It will be easier for any rebelliously-minded backbencher to prevent a Bill passing, to force an amendment, to complicate and obstruct Cameron's legislative agenda. There'll be all sorts of three-dimensional chess going on, as the bastards decide to obstruct one piece of legislation in order to gain leverage over another. Cameron will be having to second-guess his backbenchers in a way he's never had to do before. In the Lib Dem Coalition he had a thumping majority, so he could ignore the malcontents, many of whom, clearly not understanding what coalition means, were infuriated that concessions were being made to the Liberal Democrats. But now they'll be on his back all the time.

The big nightmare for Cameron will be the EU Referendum. I don't think Cameron wants out of the EU. He is calculating that this is a chance to settle the issue for a generation; if the public votes to stay in, the eurosceptics in his own party and UKIP will, he thinks, have to shut up, at least for a while. But the risk has got to be (a) what if the public vote in favour of an exit? A recent poll suggests it's finely balanced - and with the right-wing press pressing their anti-EU (i.e. anti-regulation) message, it could be a tough one to secure (b) even if, somehow, Cameron gets a vote to stay in, will the party tear itself apart in the process? There could be some bloody exchanges in the next two years which would leave many backbenchers in no mood to support Cameron. (Think of the way the Lib Dems refused to agree boundary changes in their fury at how voting reform was handled - and multiply that by a thousand.)

But ultimately this isn't just Cameron's nightmare; it's ours. I've seen some leftish commentators consoling themselves about Thursday's result by looking forward to Cameron struggling through this parliament the way Major struggled through his. But this is not something to look forward to, for three reasons.

First, actually paralysis in policy-making is good for no one. What if we get the backbench equivalent of the US Government shutdown of October 2013? Second, the real nightmare is that Cameron is likely to have to buy off his rebels by adding selected policies of theirs to his legislative programme. What if Philip Hollobone decides that the price for his vote is a ban on the burqa? What if Philip Davies decides that he'll support a budget only if the minimum wage no longer applies to the disabled? What if Jacob Rees-Mogg does make tweed compulsory in our schools? (Okay, I made that one up again.)

But third, given how unstable his majority is, Cameron may wish to come to an arrangement with MPs from other parties. But who could he turn to? I'm thinking the Lib Dems, whose seats the Tories were targeting even while they sat round the Cabinet table with them, will be too bruised to want to support their former partners. UKIP only have a single MP. Which pretty much leaves the Democratic Unionist Party and woe betide this country if the DUP have any say in national policy. It's a party whose Health Minister recently had to resign for claiming that gay parents were likely to abuse their children. It's a party whose members recently forced the National Trust to include references to creationism in its Giant's Causeway visitor centre. This is a party whose 'rising star' Paul Givan recently tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill to legally permit Christians to discriminate against homosexuals. What would they demand of Cameron in exchange for support?

In some ways this is the worst of all possible worlds. Cameron is a far-right Prime Minister in economic terms, but he's shown himself to be socially liberal in some respects (gay marriage, for instance). The situation he's in may give us an economically and socially extremist government. Be scared; be very scared.

A Very British Coup

What are the Tories up to? Here's what I think. I think they're planning a coup.

The polls really haven't moved for the whole election period, in fact since the beginning of the year, with the Tories and Labour stuck on roughly 34% each. UKIP has been on 14% for a while; the Lib Dems have fluctuated a bit but seem stuck on 9% in the main. The SNP stepped into most of Labour's Scottish seats soon after the referendum and has not budged. Unless the polls are wildly wrong and, like 1992, the electorate are just embarrassed to tell pollsters who they're going to vote for, we're heading for a hung parliament.

It's puzzled me why the Tory campaign has been so lacklustre. It just feels directionless, badly thought-out, panicky. As I wrote before, they seem to have relied on Ed Miliband as being useless, which inconveniently he's turned out not to be. When that failed, they started promising the earth: £8bn a year for the NHS (where from?) and Cameron spent ages humming and hawing about whether he'd attend the leadership debates. Cameron's had a couple of pretty idiotic gaffes (forgetting which team he support, confusing country and his career) and done some rather embarrassing stump speeches in his shirt-sleeves pretending to be 'pumped up' by the election. There have been no eye-catching initiatives, no memorable clashes. It's been a terrible campaign.

True, Labour's not been great either. Both parties have been neurotically risk-averse which means there have been very few meetings with the public, very few big events that might run the risk of going wrong - though Labour's bizarre decision to engrave its key pledges on a monolith came close to being the most idiotic moment of the whole campaign. But the Tories have benefits of being the incumbents, a slowly improving economy, and a PM with reasonable approval ratings (for some unfathomable reason).

What I'm thinking is that the Tory strategy has not been focused on the pre-election campaign because it's been focused on the post-election campaign. They know there's going to be a hung parliament (this morning the Lib Dems claimed Cameron accepted he couldn't win weeks ago) and they're not really trying to win the popular vote. Instead, they are positioning themselves to stay in power by manipulating public opinion. Why? Here's the basic Tory problem:

• It looks likely that the Tories will get around 279 seats.* Add the Lib Dems, who will probably get around 27 and you have 306 seats. That's way short of a majority. Who else might support that minority Coalition on a confidence & supply basis? 4 UKIP + 8 DUP seats. It's still only 318, which is 3 short of a majority.**
• Labour meanwhile look likely to get 270 seats. Add the SNP, who will probably get around 47 and you have 318. Then who might support this minority Coalition on a confidence & supply basis? 3 Plaid Cymru + 3 SDLP + 1 Green. That makes 325: a workable majority. And who's to say that some Lib Dems (or indeed the whole party) might not be brought onside?

Cameron has nowhere to go. So instead of winning the election fair and square he's trying to manage the post-election settlement ahead of time. And this has involved creating a narrative. This narrative has three strands. 

1. A Labour/SNP coalition would be illegitimate. 
   This has been the overwhelming message of the last three weeks. No rationale has been given for this absurd claim. The SNP's MPs will be democratically elected. The SNP would no more be holding Labour 'to ransom' than the Lib Dems have held the Tories to ransom. Coalitions mean identifying overlaps and doing deals on policy. Cameron's scaremongering suggests this will lead to the break-up of the Union. But (a) given the No vote in last year's referendum, this does not look like a likely option any time soon but also (b) that's just an opinion Cameron disagrees with; he also disagrees with many Lib Dem policies but he's been in Coalition with them, and (c) ruling out allowing virtually all Scotland's elected representatives from taking part in UK government looks like a de facto break-up of the Union anyway (and that kind of attitude will hasten the actual break-up). It looks likely that the Lib Dems and Tories will have virtually no seats in Scotland this time round, so a Coalition between them would have no representation from Scotland. Is that legitimate? The problem is that this narrative has become so strong that Miliband has been cornered into saying he'll not form a Coalition or even do a deal with the SNP. I suspect Miliband has been forced to declare this because of the pincer movement of the Tory narrative on one side and his own party's visceral hatred of the upstart SNP. I'm hoping these statement can be carefully parsed to permit some kind of agreement on HoC votes, because otherwise Miliband has been suckered into losing the election before a single seat is declared. 
2. The party with the largest number of votes must have the first chance to try to form a government.
   This isn't true. Nick Clegg seems to believe it's true. It's what he said last time. But it isn't true. But the Tories are spreading this rumour around, using the weasel word 'legitimacy' and their friends in the press are repeating it as if it has the slightest constitutional significance. A Tory party with 279 seats would have no legitimacy, no right to rule just because the Tories and Nick Clegg say so. If Labour get fewer seats than the Tories, that has almost no practical significance because they are both a long way short of a majority. Yet the Telegraph think for Miliband to pursue a Coalition with a view to becoming Prime Minister, this would be a 'plot'. Neither the Tories nor Labour would be able to command the confidence of the House on their own. They will have to form Coalitions because that's how our system works.
3. The incumbent must have the first chance to try to form a government before anyone else.
   This is also not true, but I bet we'll hear a lot about this. What is true is that Cameron remains PM unless a new government is formed, but that doesn't mean anything about whether he gets to try to form his Government first. And note, this didn't happen in 2010 - because then the Tories, successfully, put about the idea that Labour had lost the moral authority to govern. If the predictions are correct, the Coalition will have lost 52 seats and will have lost their majority. In a sense, they will have lost the election. Labour and the SNP between them will have gained 55 seats (14 and 41 respectively) and will have overtaken the Coalition. But Cameron will deliberately confuse the distinction between his right to continue as PM until a new government is formed and a fictional priority in all negotiations.

By pushing this narrative at us over the next week, the Tories hope to mount what is effectively a constitutional right-wing coup. The Tories will be rejected by the electorate but they hope they will overcome this minor inconvenience and rule anyway. In this they know they will be supported by a great deal of the press. The model is George W Bush's first Presidential election, stolen by a mixture of Fox News, Democrat indecision, and the Supreme Court.

In this, they will be aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats. Or will they? The Orange Book faction of the party have been in the ascendent in the last decade but there are signs that the rank and file are unhappy. They have been relatively loyal to Clegg but the Tories plan to go much further in their welfare cuts in the next parliament and may also raise tuition fees further, which would pour salt in the Lib Dem wounds.*** Why doesn't Labour make a a strong case to the left of the party (Cable, Hughes, etc.) and urge them to form a Coalition against the Tories? That would truly give the Tories nowhere to go. And if David Laws doesn't like it, he can fuck off and join the Conservatives.

On Friday morning,  a huge anti-Tory alliance must assert itself, confidently rebut the mendacious Tory narrative and prevent this right-wing coup.

UPDATE [6.5.15]:

• The brilliant Owen Jones has written a great piece on the same subject and, in a happy meeting of minds, we've arrived at the same title. The last three paragraphs are terrifyingly plausible.
• This excellent piece by Jane Martinson illustrates the right-wing press approach and usefully reminds us of the 'squatter' accusation levelled against Gordon Brown in 2010. Will those same journalists throw the same insults at David Cameron if he won't budge?
• There's quite a debate about the significance of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act 2011 on these debates. I've removed this discussion from these notes and will look at them separately here.

---

Notes

* I'm using the figures in The Independent's poll of polls, published on 3 May 2015.
** [amended] There is 650 seats in the House of Commons. Sinn Fein have 5 MPs but don't take their seats. The speaker also has a seat and so do his three deputies. So that reduces the practical calculation to 641. To get a majority would be to have 321 seats. 
*** The nightmare for the universities would be that the Lib Dems 'win' a concession of a freeze on £9k fees but with no top-up from central government, which would mean effectively a 16% cut in the universities' tuition income by the end of the next parliament (and that's assuming an annual 2.5% inflation rate, so that's generous to the government).