Scroll down to explore the data
When he considers what he should now say and do about immigration, David Cameron has a stark choice: to be disliked or disbelieved. If he says that the current levels reflect Britain’s strong economy, high-quality universities and the demand of employers for hard-working staff, voters will say he is hopelessly out of touch. But if he says he still means to reduce the net inflow to “tens of thousands”, voters will say “no chance”.
All modern Prime Ministers have faced dilemmas like this. The difference is that immigration didn’t used to matter so much. In Tony Blair’s era, voters were concerned with jobs, taxes, crime and healthcare. Today, as YouGov’s latest survey for Prospect shows, voters regard immigration as Britain’s number one problem; it has also jumped to the top in Sweden and Germany. The immensely distressing image of a drowned Syrian child on a beach has had some effect on European attitudes. Even so, immigration is a Europe-wide political headache.
The current crisis over refugees from Syria and elsewhere has added greatly to the immediate political problem; but the underlying challenge predates the crisis and will persist even if and when it disappears from the front pages.
The graphic shows how the fear of immigration has gripped Europe. Only in France does concern appear to have dropped; but this is an illusion. Early last year 45 per cent cited “the level of immigration” as one of the country’s three top concerns; just 6 per cent picked terrorism. Now the figures are: immigration 41 per cent, terrorism 46 per cent. Following the attack on Charlie Hebdo earlier this year, and the incident of the gunman on a TGV train shortly before we conducted our latest survey, the figures are best seen as a sharp overall rise in concerns about the impact of outsiders on life in France.
The root of the problem is a wide public perception in all the countries we surveyed that immigration does little good for the host countries. The official statistics tell a story of economic and financial gain—migrants doing jobs that are needed and paying more in taxes than they receive in public services and welfare benefits—but many people see national life going to the dogs.
When we asked specifically about immigrants from other EU countries, we found that attitudes in Britain and Germany are virtually the same—just over a quarter saying that immigration has had a positive effect. In France, immigrants from the rest of the EU are even less popular, with 53 per cent saying the impact is negative. Only Sweden tells a different story, with about one-third each saying positive and negative. Its more liberal traditions generate more liberal attitudes, but these have failed to prevent the nationalist Sweden Democrats from becoming the country’s most popular party.
In the next few months Cameron will seek EU support for, or at least tolerance of, tougher rules on free movement, as he tries to negotiate a new deal for Britain ahead of the coming referendum on EU membership. Not surprisingly, our survey indicates that there is strong domestic support for key parts of his agenda, with overwhelming majorities wanting other EU citizens being allowed to move to a new country only if they already have a job with a steady income lined up—and having to wait before they are entitled to claim welfare benefits.
Indeed 64 per cent of Britons would go further than Cameron has proposed, and support “a quota on the number of EU nationals who can move to another EU country each year.” That would kill the principle of free movement stone dead. But it’s telling that so many people support it—and that more Britons support (41 per cent) than oppose (36 per cent) “ending the right of citzens of any new member states to live and work in other EU countries”.
To report public opinion is not to endorse it, or to argue that heads of government should abandon their principles when deciding what to do. Sometimes leaders need to display courage, and choose what is right over what is popular. However, it can be unwise to defy the national mood on a major issue for too long. Cameron’s stance on immigration may be more in tune with his voters than Merkel or Hollande are with theirs, but the difference is relative; and the dilemma that flows from his failure to meet his own targets, remains acute.
Explore the data:
When he considers what he should now say and do about immigration, David Cameron has a stark choice: to be disliked or disbelieved. If he says that the current levels reflect Britain’s strong economy, high-quality universities and the demand of employers for hard-working staff, voters will say he is hopelessly out of touch. But if he says he still means to reduce the net inflow to “tens of thousands”, voters will say “no chance”.
All modern Prime Ministers have faced dilemmas like this. The difference is that immigration didn’t used to matter so much. In Tony Blair’s era, voters were concerned with jobs, taxes, crime and healthcare. Today, as YouGov’s latest survey for Prospect shows, voters regard immigration as Britain’s number one problem; it has also jumped to the top in Sweden and Germany. The immensely distressing image of a drowned Syrian child on a beach has had some effect on European attitudes. Even so, immigration is a Europe-wide political headache.
The current crisis over refugees from Syria and elsewhere has added greatly to the immediate political problem; but the underlying challenge predates the crisis and will persist even if and when it disappears from the front pages.
The graphic shows how the fear of immigration has gripped Europe. Only in France does concern appear to have dropped; but this is an illusion. Early last year 45 per cent cited “the level of immigration” as one of the country’s three top concerns; just 6 per cent picked terrorism. Now the figures are: immigration 41 per cent, terrorism 46 per cent. Following the attack on Charlie Hebdo earlier this year, and the incident of the gunman on a TGV train shortly before we conducted our latest survey, the figures are best seen as a sharp overall rise in concerns about the impact of outsiders on life in France.
The root of the problem is a wide public perception in all the countries we surveyed that immigration does little good for the host countries. The official statistics tell a story of economic and financial gain—migrants doing jobs that are needed and paying more in taxes than they receive in public services and welfare benefits—but many people see national life going to the dogs.
When we asked specifically about immigrants from other EU countries, we found that attitudes in Britain and Germany are virtually the same—just over a quarter saying that immigration has had a positive effect. In France, immigrants from the rest of the EU are even less popular, with 53 per cent saying the impact is negative. Only Sweden tells a different story, with about one-third each saying positive and negative. Its more liberal traditions generate more liberal attitudes, but these have failed to prevent the nationalist Sweden Democrats from becoming the country’s most popular party.
In the next few months Cameron will seek EU support for, or at least tolerance of, tougher rules on free movement, as he tries to negotiate a new deal for Britain ahead of the coming referendum on EU membership. Not surprisingly, our survey indicates that there is strong domestic support for key parts of his agenda, with overwhelming majorities wanting other EU citizens being allowed to move to a new country only if they already have a job with a steady income lined up—and having to wait before they are entitled to claim welfare benefits.
Indeed 64 per cent of Britons would go further than Cameron has proposed, and support “a quota on the number of EU nationals who can move to another EU country each year.” That would kill the principle of free movement stone dead. But it’s telling that so many people support it—and that more Britons support (41 per cent) than oppose (36 per cent) “ending the right of citzens of any new member states to live and work in other EU countries”.
To report public opinion is not to endorse it, or to argue that heads of government should abandon their principles when deciding what to do. Sometimes leaders need to display courage, and choose what is right over what is popular. However, it can be unwise to defy the national mood on a major issue for too long. Cameron’s stance on immigration may be more in tune with his voters than Merkel or Hollande are with theirs, but the difference is relative; and the dilemma that flows from his failure to meet his own targets, remains acute.
Explore the data:
