Before Germany lectures us about refugees, perhaps it should reflect on its own past

Doubtless it is small-minded of me, but when the German government starts lecturing the british Government about proper behaviour, my immediate reaction is not always very positive. this is perhaps particularly the case when those lectures are on the subject of immigration.

According to stephan Mayer, a right- of- centre spokesman on home affairs for Angela Merkel, britain is jeopardising its relations with Germany by refusing to take in more asylum- seekers. the suggestion is that we are refusing to pull our weight, and have an ‘out-of-the-club’ mentality.

Many German politicians evidently take a similar view of our supposed meanness of spirit, as do some German newspapers. bild, the country’s biggest-selling title, has published a photograph of David Cameron under the headline: ‘the slackers of europe — they take far fewer refugees than they could.’

Persecution

Do they have a point? only a very tiny one. Historically, britain has had a much more open-minded attitude towards genuine refugees than Germany. And while it is true that Germany is now shouldering by far the biggest burden, do not assume its motivations are entirely selfless.

We needn’t dwell too long on the Huguenots (some 50,000 refugees escaping from Catholic France in the late 17th century) or the Jews (about 80,000 fleeing from Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s) to make the point that this country has traditionally had a heart, though it’s certainly true we wrongly turned many Jews away.

Nor need we spend a great deal of time reflecting on the 120,000 or so Jews who escaped pogroms and persecution in eastern europe at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, and found a home in britain.

In modern times, Germany has not exactly covered itself in glory so far as immigrants are concerned. During the 1960s and 1970s — long before re-unification — West Germany sucked in hundreds of thousands of so-called Gastarbeiter from countries such as turkey and Yugoslavia to supply labour for its booming economy.

Gastarbeiter means ‘ guest worker’ — and that is exactly what they remained. they were not given citizenship for many years, if at all, and only limited attempts were made to integrate these foreigners.

britain, by contrast, conferred full citizenship on immigrants from former colonies during the same period, and at least made some efforts to integrate them. In 1972 some 30,000 ugandan Asians were taken in by britain virtually overnight after they had been expelled by Idi Amin.

so I humbly submit that, before they climb into their pulpits to deliver a withering dressing- down, German politicians might care to reflect that britain has a pretty good record in welcoming immigrants, including refugees, while Germany does not obviously have much to crow about.

Moreover, Germany’s readiness to accept a greater number of asylum-seekers — I here draw a distinction between these people and migrants in general — is of very recent vintage. During the first decade of this century, britain, with its smaller population, admitted slightly more asylum seekers.

Now, of course, the tables have been suddenly turned inasmuch as Germany has said it will accept 800,000 asylumseekers and refugees this year, while britain is reluctant to take more than a handful. but this decision must be seen in the context of the two countries’ different experiences of mass immigration.

broadly speaking, Germany and britain have similar proportions of foreign-born people — 12.2 per cent and 12.5 per cent respectively. but in recent years Germany has been actively encouraging immigrants. britain, while absorbing similar inflows, has been more ambivalent about the process.

the main reason is that Germany has a declining birth rate and a falling population. this stood at 82.21 million in 2000; despite high levels of immigration, it had fallen to 80.76 million by 2014. During the same period, britain’s population soared from 58.89 million to 64.3 million. on present trends, the population of this country could exceed that of Germany by the middle of the century.

this explains, in large measure, why Germany seems almost eager to welcome new migrants, while often not troubling too much as to whether they are asylum- seekers or economic migrants. the German economy needs to boost its workingage population.

britain, on the other hand, though certainly having an appetite for cheap foreign labour, is acutely aware of the effects on housing and public services, such as schools and hospitals, of a rapidly rising population largely fuelled by immigration. only last week we learnt that net immigration to this country in the 12 months to March was an all-time record of 330,000.

that is why the Government is so reluctant to accept large numbers of asylum- seekers. the needs of the two countries are very different, and fingerwagging German politicians should show more awareness of that fact.

Desperate

As it happens, I am in instinctive sympathy with the suggestion by Yvette Cooper, surely the most plausible of labour’s would- be leaders, that the british Government should agree to accept 10,000 bona fide refugees, if someone would only take the time and trouble to weed them out from economic migrants. It seems the decent and humane thing to do — and very much in our tradition of helping those in desperate straits.

but can a country which is already taking in more immigrants than is manageable — so much so that immigration now ranks as people’s number one concern, above even the economy — add to numbers which have already run far beyond the Government’s intentions?

Here, of course, our German friends miss another point — which is that european union rules about the free movement of labour mean we have lost control of our borders — and as a result our moral choices have become clouded.

If the british people were given a choice, would they rather offer a home to genuine syrian refugees fleeing a terrible war, or to Romanian and bulgarian migrants (50,000 of them in the year to March) drawn here by the prospect of higher wages and, in some cases, generous welfare payments?

Browbeating

My vote would be strongly with the refugees. the trouble is that too many years of uncontrolled immigration — and the inability of politicians of all parties to curb it — have disenchanted many people, and left them anxious about migrants of every shape and size.

In truth, the German politicians who lecture David Cameron are really browbeating the british people, for there can be little doubt that in his reluctance to accept more asylum- seekers, the Prime Minister is reflecting the fears of the majority of ordinary voters.

but I don’t believe the british are mean-spirited or xenophobic or racist. Most of them just feel there has been too much immigration, and these sceptics include many recent immigrants and their descendants.

German politicians are trying to place themselves on the moral high ground, and to shame us. I’ve argued that in view of Germany’s recent history they might be a little more cautious about delivering moral homilies, and that their apparent generosity towards refugees is at least in part driven by economic self-interest.

Nor do I think there is any need for us to lapse into selfloathing. We’ve provided a safe haven for many thousands of refugees over the years, and I’m sure we will do so again. looking across the Channel, I’d say we had less cause than most to hang our heads in shame.