A cold wind from the east

eastern invasionI live in a country that I have known and loved for more than half of my life. I feel part of its living, breathing fabric and it’s an indelible part of who I am. Building on my vestigial instincts, England is what made me the bleeding-heart, doubting, tormented cosmopolitan I feel that I am meant to be. Slowly but surely, it rubbed away most signs of who I was before I knew it. I belong here, it is my home.

Lately, our government has been working hard to raise alert about the impending invasion of my countrymen, rebranded bogeymen. Romania and Bulgaria’s seven-year “transitionary” restrictions to the EU labour market are coming to an end, which in theory should make all EU citizens equal. We are told they are poised to invade these fragile shores and pilfer our lowest-status jobs, seduce our women, and push in front of us in the queue at Sainsbury’s. Or something like that. We don’t know how many will turn up and what untold chaos they will wreak, but we await them nervously. The appalling barbarians must be dissuaded from believing they will have a fun time in these parts, so we are making TV adverts assuring them they won’t. In their grotesque lack of sophistication, they will think twice about moving to a country where it rains a lot and where they won’t find a ‘welcome’ dole office at the border so that they can take advantage the second they arrive.

Inconvenient truths must be cast aside to protect the nation – such as that migrants have been shown to be substantially less inclined to claim benefits than their bona fide British brothers and sisters.

I for one didn’t turn up on these shores for the weather nor for the legendary 60 pounds per week of Jobseekers’ Allowance. I wasn’t terribly interested in reaping the benefits of Western neoliberal capitalism either. I came to the UK because I felt at home among its self-deprecating, open-minded and reflective people. In time, I grew accustomed to unyielding gravity-fed hot water systems, mint sauce and harassment at the border control desk. It was a price I could happily pay to live in a society of like-minded folk. I am now told I was miss-seeing things. England didn’t mean it. We are not all born equal. My presence is worrisome. England had rather I stopped playing with its toys.

The incensed are right to a large degree. Their innate sense of fairness is quite rightly ringing alarm bells. Some people out there are indeed taking advantage. They are stoking up our basest fearful instincts, hopeful that we might overlook the real abuses they themselves are carrying out. Frothing with rage at the thought of – largely imaginary – outsiders benefiting unduly from a society they do not contribute to, we close our eyes to those robbing us blind from their privileged positions near the centre of power. It is the dismantling of the public service system and its selling off to a variety of friendly bidders that should make us angry, and the demonization of the state in its protective – but never its coercive – capacity. It’s the dissolution of our employment and social security rights that should incense us. These are the things making life much worse for us and those who will come after us. Not the Eastern European bogeyman.

Prone still to a rather Romanian penchant for drama and overreaction, I half-expect to be escorted off the island.

Ambition

A few months ago I offered advice to a humanist organisation doing great work to promote human rights and equality in Europe and beyond. We spoke at length about their impression of being denied access to the key discussions taking place within the EU institutions on matters to do with faith and inter-cultural dialogue. I couldn’t help but agree that inter-faith debates in Brussels frequently exclude secularism. This is a significant systemic failure that deserves to be addressed – for its influence on political debate and project funding, if anything.

I spent a long time before our meeting reflecting on the reasons why EU debates on matters of faith are not as inclusive as they ought to be. I have direct experience of running inter-cultural conferences in the European Parliament. So I understand the influence that external actors can have at every stage of the process. Such external influences can be a fundamentally positive way of keeping political debates relevant at a societal level. If they retain a sense of balance, that is.

The question is who is responsible for ensuring balance and fairness. The institutions themselves have a lot of power in this respect, naturally. But, from my experience, they are also fairly responsive to external pressures. Some humanists fear, for example, the conspiratorial influence of the Catholic Church. It’s certainly true that many MEPs and EU civil servants do not disclose their allegiance and links to particular faith organisations. But the reality is that most lobbying by churches takes place overtly, using professional strategies and established channels. The Catholic Church are a good example of successful lobbying that results in influence on political debate and a seat at the discussion table.

Amplified makes it its mission to help social progressives gain access to the corridors of power via the same established channels used by conventional interest group lobbying. They must overcome their outsider complex and be armed with the knowledge, confidence and contacts that are needed to have an impact. The balance of influence often tilts towards established interests, but their wheels also squeak much louder. This can and should change.