Challenge of immigration led to Brexit, but for us it could be a saviour

THE announcement that the British prime minister is to oppose the UK remaining in the EU customs union is a dramatic signal that we now face a very hard Brexit. Britain will constitute a physical barrier between Ireland and the rest of the European Union.

Ireland’s long-standing habit, ingrained in our civil service, of imitating UK legislation and norms will have to stop. We will need to think European, if we are not to become isolated from the mainstream.

We will need to become much more familiar with what is going on in France and Germany. We will also need to show that we can offer constructive ideas that help solve the problems of the other (continental) EU countries. In that way, we will gain influence. Then the others will be willing to help us when we need it.

We must show that, unlike the UK, we do not see the EU as “them”, but rather as “us”. That was the strong message of the Taoiseach’s speech to the European Parliament.

We need to understand the worries of our fellow EU members, and we need to help find solutions.

Immigration, and threats associated with it, top the list of worries. Europe is getting old (so is the UK). This is happening for two reasons: we are living longer and we have had fewer children.

Life expectancy in the European Union countries was 67 years in 1950, now it is 80 years.

In fact, life expectancy is increasing by three months every year.

In 1960, the birth rate was an average of three children for every woman. Now it has halved, to 1.5 children for every woman.

There are small variations between countries, with a higherthan-average birth rate of nearly two in France, Sweden, Ireland and the UK (in declining order). The lowest birth rate in the EU is in Portugal, followed in order by Poland, Spain, Greece and Italy.

Interestingly, the proportion of women with work outside the home does not lead to lower birth rates, according to these comparisons.

Europe’s declining, and ageing, population has had, and is likely to continue to have, dramatic effects.

Whereas Europeans made up 13.5pc of the world’s population in 1960, by 2060 Europeans will only be 5pc of the world population. Political perceptions have yet to catch up with this reality. In 2016, the fastest declines in population were in Lithuania, Latvia, Croatia, Belgium and Romania. But there was some growth in Luxembourg, Sweden, Malta and Ireland.

The critical problem is that the number of Europeans of working age will fall by 65 million people by 2060. Unless people retire later in the future, this will mean fewer people earning and in a position to pay taxes, and more people retired and receiving pensions and health services, paid for by someone else.

With fewer young people, EU countries will have fewer local people available to work in the health services, in social care, and providing minimal military and police security for the European population. To recruit these young people into services, much higher salaries will have to be paid and/or immigrants will have to be recruited to these jobs. This is unless people providing services are replaced by robots.

Ageing will tend to depress economic growth. Older people will tend not to be as entrepreneurial as younger people, and to be more risk averse. They will tend to spend more of their income and save less of it. This could mean fewer European innovations, and less European saving available for investment. Lower economic growth, at a time when the cost of healthcare and pensions will be increasing, will lead to political tension.

These trends are not inevitable and Ireland needs to take a lead in thinking about how to reverse or slow them down. What can be changed? Five areas need to be considered.

European birth rates could increase. In the last few years, they

have stopped falling. Women could decide to have children at a younger age. French policy on this issue is worth looking at.

Improvement in educational methods and efficiency could mean young people are ready to go to work productively, at an earlier age. At the moment, employers are looking for ever higher qualifications, which may not be justified.

Retirement ages could be increased. Some countries have already done this. It is not popular because it is seen as reducing pension entitlements.

Cultural change could lead to older people being more innovative and starting new businesses even when they are approaching retirement age.

Rather than resist immigration, Europeans could start to encourage it, on the basis we need immigrants, of working age, to staff our hospitals, security services, and pay taxes. If immigrants are to help EU countries maintain a healthy and balanced population structure, we are going to have to give a lot more thought to how best to help immigrants become fully integrated into our societies, and develop good links to the native-born population.

Workplaces alone cannot bear the whole burden of integrating people of different backgrounds. The experience on integrated workplaces in Northern Ireland has brought relatively little political and cultural integration between ‘nationalists’ and ‘unionists’. Workplaces have become more specialised and solitary, and opportunities for integration between workmates may be less as a result.

So local communities, and religious, sporting and cultural organisations, must play a bigger part. Where these organisations receive support from public funds, they should perhaps get a little extra if they have a good record, or plan for integrating immigrants.

Anti-immigration sentiment in Britain led to Brexit. Ireland must show it is different. It must show that it understands Europe’s demographic challenge, and is working for solutions.