The Guardian view on EU citizens: May’s moral blindspot

The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]27 Feb 2019: 2.

Full Text

The prime minister has missed countless opportunities to show compassion for people whose lives have been turned upside-down by Brexit

Many people were shocked by the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum, but few felt stronger emotions than the three million citizens of other EUcountries living in the UK, whose futures became alarmingly uncertain. That anxiety has hardly diminished since then. On Wednesday MPs offered some reassurance to those contemplating a future in legal limbo. Parliament endorsed an amendment instructing the government to salvage the citizens’ rights portion of Theresa May’s EU withdrawal agreement, even if that deal itself falls.

It is revealing that the prime minister did not immediately see virtue in supporting the amendment, which was tabled by Alberto Costa, a Conservative. OnTuesday, Mrs May told the Commons that Mr Costa’s suggestion was unworkable. But a day later, Sajid Javid, the home secretary, told a select committee that the idea of ring-fencing expatriate rights was sensible. Meanwhile, Mr Costa was forced to surrender his post as a ministerial aide (following a convention that freelancing frontbenchers do not amend government business). Hours later, David Lidington, the cabinet office minister, confirmed from the despatch box that the government supported the substance of the amendment so it passed uncontested.

Such ineptitude would be farcical if it were not also frightening. It reflects chaos at the centre of government and disregard inside No 10 for the fate of millions of people whose lives have been turned upside down by choices the prime minister has made. Mrs May’s handling of the citizens’ rights question has been callous from the start. She has missed countless opportunities to signal magnanimity and cultivate goodwill. She has looked at every turn grudging in her pledges of continuity. She has shown no understanding of the damage that was done to Britain’s international reputation by her readiness to use insecure people as bargaining chips.

That insensitivity is integral to the prime minister’s politics. It is the trait that expressed itself during a decade in the Home Office, cultivating the “hostile environment” that was meant to apply to migrants without legal entitlement to stay in the UK but that evolved into the Windrush scandal. The evidence of Mrs May’s career lends credence to the assertion by Anna Soubry, one of the MPs who quit the Tory party last week, that the prime minister has “a problem with immigrants”. That problem is hardwired into the UK’s Brexit strategy as a determination to end free movement, regardless of theconsequences for the economy or for individuals.

Mrs May might believe that her anti-immigration politics are in tune with public opinion, but she pursues her agenda with a rigidity that appals leave voters as well as remainers. Mr Costa’s amendment was supported early on by MPs from every faction in the Brexit debate. Mrs May was a very late convert.

It is right that MPs address the anxiety experienced by EU citizens who felt displaced by the referendum, but today’s symbolic declaration does not reach the root of their peril – removal of the legal basis on which people made Britain their home. Brexit is by definition a curtailment of rights bestowed by EUmembership. Mrs May might not value the freedom of EU nationals to choose a life in Britain, nor has she shown much interest in the plight of British citizens who have exercised the reciprocal right in other European countries. She sees the end of free movement entirely as a benefit. Her inability to perceive that it can also be a cost, that it inflicts pain on millions of people, is not just politically obtuse, it is morally suspect.

Word count: 611