Refugee Crisis

As we progress into the closing session of this debate, the differences amongst our debaters remain at large as both attempt to address each other’s arguments and comments. Nonetheless, voting statistics throughout the debate show us that the audience thus far has mostly sided with the proposition and only 26% of those who have voted agree with the opposition. Much therefore depends on the next four days as our debate move towards its conclusion. 

For those of you who have just joined us, I will try my best to briefly summarize what our debaters had to say in their rebuttal remarks. Dr. Kirsten McConnachie, while defending the motion, pointed out how most European nations have been unaware of the global refugee flows, particularly in the third world countries which have hosted large populations of refugees with little international recognition. She clarified her point regarding refugee protection by saying that, “it is not an open-ended protection but operates within clearly defined limits.” Dr. McConnachie stresses that “any system for granting asylum must be rooted in objective principle rather than kneejerk opinion.” She argued that the opposition’s argument is “inconsistent but it accurately reflects the views of many who oppose granting asylum to refugees.” Moreover, Dr. McConnachie warned that forcibly encamping millions of refugees may violate the principle of non-refoulement by denying them the right to seek asylum and freedom of movement as defined in international, human rights and European law. It can also give rise to security risks such as political radicalisation and militarisation. By giving the example of UNHCR’s low budget due to its heavy reliance on voluntary financial contributions, Dr. McConnachie concluded that, “any refugee protection system that relies on voluntary financial contributions is doomed to fail.” She emphasised that the refugee protection is a serious matter which needs thoughtful discussion. In conclusion, Dr. McConnachie summarized her argument by saying, “I am not suggesting that we should ignore the complex political and social consequences of doing so. I am arguing that we must base our discussion on accurate understanding of the facts, and use that discussion to strengthen a principled, rule-based system.” 

Arguing against the motion, Mr. David Goodhart began his remarks by comparing the current refugee crisis in Europe with that of 1940s and 1950s, arguing that both situations are “completely different”. He said that most people at that time “were released prisoners or demobbed soldiers desperately trying to get home.” However today, he said, the people seeking refugee are not trying to get home. Rather, “they are looking for a better life in a rich country.” “Who can blame them?” asks Mr. Goodhart, “If was in their position I would probably do the same.” However, he argues, that is not the solution and “the more we let in, the more will come.” Furthermore, Mr. Goodhart says, “Of course we do need special arrangements for countries like Syria that are disrupted by conflict but, as I argued in my first letter, there are many different ways that we can help and allowing people to come and live permanently in Europe should be the last resort.” He argues that, “we should not feel righteous about tempting people away from countries that are often struggling to modernise politically and economically.” Mr. Goodhart also refuted the claim that refugees are a great economic benefit for the European countries by quoting one figure, that “only one third of the refugees who have arrived in the Netherlands in the past 20 years are currently working at all.” He concluded his remarks by saying that, “European citizens want security and the rule of law on their external border. If they do not get it our politics will be poisoned for a generation and future European Donald Trumps will ensure that we have no refugee policy at all.” 

Many members of the audience also contributed through their valuable comments in this discussion on the rights of the refugees and whether or not they should always be accepted by other countries. Let’s see what our debaters have to say as they try to persuade the audience one last time. 

To read full rebuttal statements of the debaters, please visit the ‘rebuttal statements’ page.

Goodhart says that I ignore public opinion. He is wrong. Indeed, I believe my opinion is more widely held than his (and the votes thus far to this debate suggest that I am correct, currently sitting at 75%:25% in my favour). The implication that I ignore those who disagree with me is also wrong. On the contrary, I spend quite a lot of time trying to understand their reasoning. Goodhart has twice mentioned Donald Trump, and there are some striking similarities between the Trump phenomenon in American electoral politics and anti-refugee activism in Europe. Both groups of people are angry, and they are afraid: afraid of a world that they see as threatening and dangerous, a world where their own opportunities may be under threat, a world where the established centres of political power may be shifting.

In Europe, and perhaps particularly in Britain, there seems to be a tendency to find something to blame, something that can be repealed to roll back the errors of the modern world: the Human Rights Act, Brexit, closing Britain’s borders. The hope appears to be that by repealing these laws or relationships we can re-enter an idyllic past, where Britain was Great, the sun never set on the Empire and we lived in caring communities. This peaceful, prosperous past is an illusion. Furthermore, the laws and relationships that many seek to eradicate have deep roots. The Refugee Convention is a legally binding international treaty, which has been adopted by 145 countries worldwide and has served as the mainstay of responses to forced migration for seventy years.  It is not an op-ed in Socialist Worker, and those who disagree with it can’t simply argue it into irrelevance.     

It is also unrealistic to believe that we can simply close our borders against outsiders.  Terrorism is a serious threat, but globalisation is a complex force and we in Britain cannot survive on our small island in splendid isolation. Dismantling the system of asylum is not the solution to terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. On the contrary, a properly managed asylum system allows for controlled reception and processing of refugees. In addition, European refusal to accept refugees plays directly into the agenda of fundamentalists who wish to separate the world into fault lines of Islam/Other.  By doing so, we risk feeding radicalisation and creating a truly dangerous world.

This debate, and the wider public debate about refugees, has focused predominantly on fears and threats and obligations, but there are many very positive arguments in favour of accepting refugees.  Goodhart is not persuaded by arguments from legal obligation or human compassion, but perhaps he may find self-interest more convincing. He does not believe that refugees may provide an economic benefit, but there is growing recognition that this is the case – and this argument is not emerging from the liberal left but from the neoliberal right. In relation to the current arrival of refugees in Europe, the IMF estimates a short term cost of 0.19% GDP (Europe-wide) from hosting refugees, but a longer term fiscal boost of 0.1% to 0.3% GDP annually. The Economist has described refugees in Europe as “a demographer’s dream”. Countries with ageing populations and a shrinking labour pool are facing impending social and fiscal disaster. In the UK, rather than rejecting refugees, we should have the foresight to recognise that they may rescue us from economic catastrophe.

A further concern raised by those opposing refugees is that our countries cannot cope with the influx and our societies will be damaged beyond repair. While we cannot predict the future, we can read the past. In the UK we have accepted Huguenots, Jews, emigres from the Russian Revolution, Hungarians fleeing after the 1956 uprising, Ugandan Asians exiled by Idi Amin. We have also generated our share of forced migration, sending Scots and Irish to the US, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere.  The movement of people is an ancient and unstoppable force and the world is richer for it.

Ultimately, refugees will continue to exist.  If people’s lives and security are at risk, they will leave in search of asylum elsewhere. Goodhart’s argument is simply that these people should not be accepted in the UK, in Europe.  My position is that there are legal, moral and ethical imperatives to accept refugees.  Not only that, we will be economically stronger and politically safer by doing so.