The liberal that never was

On Saturday 2018-11-17 I attended the annual “Battle of Ideas” event at Kulturhuset in Stockholm. The event brings famous opinion-makers from Sweden and UK to discuss different topics from the public debate. One of the sessions was about “Immigration and Citizenship” mostly taking place between the classical liberal Fredrik Segerfeldt who promotes global free movement for individuals and the left-wing oriented David Goodhart who promotes immigration restrictions.

Goodhart is famous for his presentation of categories “somewhere and anywheres” which reminds of “globalists vs nationalists”. Also, he is famous for writing about how he stopped being a liberal and supporter of liberalism. At the moment am trying to analyse Goodhart’s arguments and opinions especially when it comes to migration because I think that intellectuals who are promoting restrictions and authoritarian policies should be more challenged. So here are some notes from the debate in Stockholm:

1.   European free movement

According to Goodhart, the EU: s free movement is more of a political tool than economic one. It is an example of EU:s “post-national overreach” without an “economic rationale” that also has led to Brexit.

Well, the case is that many people in UK do not see themselves as Europeans or as EU-citizens which is more of a result how of the political communication since the 1990’s. There has been a tendency to present the EU as something intergovernmental and economic which is to narrow and not matching the political reality.  But one does not have to be a rocket-scientist, or a political scientist, to realize that creation of a common economy also has to be based on free movement of individuals.

The idea of EU-citizenship was part of a political agenda to legitimize the creation of the EU in 1992-93 Maastricht Treaty period. In such terms it is a “political tool” just as a state level citizenship. For example, as Sweden was becoming a nation-state in 19^th century, during the middle of 1850’s free movement was introduced and internal passports were scrapped.

Another idea was that free movement of individuals is on a long-term going to lead to economic convergence and more equality within the union. This is a very slow process, but it is taking place. The “economic rationale” is that wage equalization is primarily based on free movement of capital and people. This is one of the reasons why wages today are higher in younger but “poorer” EU-states as Poland and Czech Republic.

As I see it, the main problem with Goodhart’s arguments are state-centrism and methodological nationalism. The European left-wing actors often communicate about economic equality, but in state-centric terms. One can say that by his views on migration and economy Goodhart is in favour of national economic equality in UK but arguing against, or at least not being in favour of, European nor global, economic equality. Also, one can say that Goodhart is sympathizing with “somewheres” in UK but not with somewheres in other parts of the EU or rest of the world.

This is something that more civic and cosmopolitan oriented left-wing actors should be better at explaining to their voters and supporters – that without European free movement, and on the long-term a global free movement, the inequality levels would be much higher for more people.  

2.   Importation of labour force

Another view presented by Goodhart was about “importation” of labour force. Personally, I do not like this term since humans should not be imported and exported in linguistic meaning. Migration is after all based on individual interests and interactions even if there cases governments and public jobs. In this case Goodhart argued that free movement in EU benefits people as academics and therefore has little to do with economic rationale. But as I am writing earlier, this is not the case. Both low- and high-skilled Europeans have benefited, especially individuals from younger EU-countries as Latvia, Poland and Romania. I do not see how a low-educated individual from Poland taking a construction job in UK can be labelled as a “anywhere” that according to Goodhart hare liberal well-educated big city people.

3.   Brain-drain argument

Now when it comes to more global migration Goodhart argues that there is a brain-drain situation since countries as in Africa are losing their best and that people should stay where they are in order to contribute to their societies. He also argues that middle class people as in Africa are becoming more mobile and wanting to leave. So, in the best case they should be allowed to come to Europe, to places as UK, on a temporary basis to get educated and then go back to rebuild their countries. Basically, there should be more limitations on migration in order to prevent countries being poor or to suffer brain-drain.  

But what about the individual? There are many cases of brain drain taking place. As a writer of this blog my personal experience is that many young and talented people have left, are leaving or wanting to leave Bosnia in order to find a better life somewhere else. And according to intellectuals as Goodhart I should have stayed in Bosnia in order to help to rebuild the country and to contribute to the society there. 

However, the reality is much more complex. For example, according to the Bosnian constitution I am among the “others” since I am not a Serb, Croat or a Bosniac. That makes automatically harder for me to get a public job. And even in the private sector due my political opinions and my identification. Now I could have a job in the private sector by starting my own business which means getting in touch with corruption and waiting for a long-time procedure. But why should I stay in Bosnia when I like big city cosmopolitan life, pluralism and civility. Why should young people in Africa be forced to stay in areas with corruption and problems which they do not like. Or where governments are using deadly force and repression against you?  

For example, in Sweden few would argue that government should prevent individuals from moving to Stockholm in order to keep small towns alive and to reduce brain-drain.  Through history countries have vanished and been established all the time. And EU is a polity that offers a good alternative for individuals, cities and regions comparing to the nation-state idea. If governments and leading political actors want a certain population to stay in a country it means that they need to be better as governments and political actors. This is for example the case of Latvia where many are worrying about emigration, which is understandable, but also where problems with economy, corruption and lack of opportunities are large.  

One of the best things with the free movement is one´s “exit rights”. As individuals, we should be able to choose to go to places which we find better for ourselves. In Goodhart´s case, he could choose to live in a country with more restrictive migration policy as Hungary or even outside of Europe as with Saudi Arabia. It is better to allow people to be productive and contribute to those cities, regions, countries, continents they personally choose to contribute to. As humans we do not choose are place of birth, so we should be able to choose our place of work and self-development as long as we respect basic freedoms and rights of others.

If one reads how Goodhart has developed his arguments since 2000 one could wonder if Goodhart has ever been a liberal? As Per Svensson, one of the most famous liberals in Sweden, once wrote: “The subject (core) of liberalism is the individual. Collective identities are more or less temporary”.