It has been another unprecedented week in foreign policy. As world leaders battle to save their populations and the economies from the coronavirus, ‘business as usual’ has very much fallen to  the wayside. We continue to bring you stories from beyond the mass of overwhelming Covid-19 news.

In a tumultuous week for the European Union as whole, tensions between north and south have resurfaced in squabbles over the correct economic response to the coronavirus. Headlines have also been dominated by the decline of the rule of law in Hungary. In light of Hungary’s parliament passing a law that allows prime Minister Viktor Orbán to rule by decree, twelve prominent national leaders in the European People’s Party (EPP) have pushed for Orbán’s Fidesz party to be kicked out of the center-right political group. Maia de la Baume details the story for POLITICO. The group suspended Fidesz last March over concerns about the rule of law in Hungary, but this expulsion would be unprecedented.

Keith Zhai and Yew Lun Tian explore for Reuters the mysterious rise of Zhao Lijian, a diplomat returned from a posting in Pakistan. Whilst diplomats returning from overseas postings are not usually the subject of special attention at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao has been the subject of admiration, in part due to his role in a Twitter spat with Susan Rice, former national security adviser to Barack Obama. This behaviour comes after President Xi Jinping had urged diplomats to show more ‘fighting spirit’. Zhao is the same diplomat that  attracted controversy in recent weeks for promoting a conspiracy theory that the US military brought the coronavirus to the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where the outbreak began last year.

The coronavirus crisis has caused oil prices to plummet, and most recently soar, after US President Donald Trump hinted that Saudi Arabia and Russia would make major cuts to supply. Catherine Ngai examines what this means in practice in Bloomberg. Prices rocketed despite skepticism over Trump’s comments, and as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not spoken to the Saudi crown prince Mohamad Bin Salman. Saudi Arabia has called for an urgent meeting of OPEC to reach a ‘fair deal’ to restore a balance in oil markets.

The global sanctions regime has been the target of much criticism recently as countries brought to their knees by Covid-19 face the double blow of sanctions on their already-struggling economy. This week, the UK, France and Germany successfully side-stepped the US’ sanctions on  Iran in order to deliver health supplies to the nation. Conversely, Colum Lynch argues for Foreign Policy that now is not the time to back down on sanctions. Ukraine has appealed to the United Nations to maintain the economic pressure on Russia and other rule breakers. Backtracking on sanctions now, they argue, is ‘appeasement’.

The Economist is making some of its Covid-19  coverage free to read, and we would highly recommend this piece on how Africa is equipped to deal with Covid-19. While much of the coronavirus coverage we are exposed to centres around the UK, the US and the EU, this piece  explores the realities of what coronavirus will mean to some of the world’s most vulnerable health systems and economies. The continent will not face this crisis in isolation, and the actions of western nations –  such as export bans and debt collections – have direct ramifications on the continent’s coronavirus response. Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s prime minister, has asked the G20 for a $150 billion emergency package. How the world collaborates on this crisis will mark international society for years to come.

The British Foreign Policy Group is an independent, non-partisan think tank based in London. Through dynamic research, events and networks, we seek to strengthen the UK’s international engagement, and advance our understanding of global affairs in the 21st Century.

For more original research, comment and events from the British Foreign Policy Group, sign up to our Newsletter.

How is the international community collaborating on the coronavirus pandemic?

Whilst the World Health Organisation has been issuing guidance to nations on how best to respond to the coronavirus, as well as coordinating scientific advice and evidence, there has been little coordinated global political leadership on the pandemic. States have implemented varying responses, and others have shut borders without notice, vindicating the theory of world politics being a ‘zero sum’ game in which states compete, rather than cooperate, with each other.

Leaders of the G20 states – including the United Kingdom – have met to discuss the crisis via video conference. The G20 was quick to act in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, but has been criticised for failing to develop a similar response for the current pandemic. The leaders agreed on the call to assess gaps in pandemic preparedness and increase funding for research and development in vaccines and medicines. The joint communique released by the Group said that the pandemic was ‘a powerful reminder of our interconnectedness and vulnerabilities’.^[i]

Foreign ministers of the G7 states, who also met to discuss the crisis, were unable to agree a joint communique after the US insisted COVID-19 be described as the ‘Wuhan virus’.^[ii]

Countries – to a large extent – are operating in isolation in order to develop a vaccine, although some nations have contributed to international institutions working to develop a vaccine. The UK, for example, has committed an additional £210 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a global alliance financing and coordinating the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases.^[iii]

 

How have international institutions responded to the crisis?

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that ‘Covid-19 is the greatest test that we have faced together since the formation of the United Nations’ and called for ‘an immediate coordinated health response to suppress transmission and end the pandemic’.

The 15-member United Nations Security Council, made up of five permanent members: the United States, the UK, France, Russia and China, has thus far failed to produce any action or statement on the coronavirus crisis. This is due in part to the divisions between the US and China, for example American insistence that the Chinese origins of the virus be stressed in official documentation.

Guterres has called for sanctions to be suspended on vulnerable countries, which the United States has ignored, intensifying action against Iran and Venezuela. Meanwhile, the UK, France and Germany have side-stepped United States sanctions on Iran to deliver medical supplies.^[iv] Russia has blocked an attempt to hold virtual security council sessions by video conference. Vassily Nebenzia, in a letter obtained by Foreign Policy, wrote to his Chinese counterpart ‘we shouldn’t be afraid to gather from time to time in the UNSC chamber.’^[v]

The United Nations’ general assembly, made up of all 193 member states to the United Nations, is currently considering a resolution to uphold the organisation’s central role in fighting the pandemic. Additionally, Guterres has announced a $2 billion global humanitarian response plan to fund the fight against coronavirus in the world’s most fragile countries.^[vi] He has appealed for support from countries, private companies, and philanthropists.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have released a joint statement calling on all official bilateral creditors to suspend debt payments from borrowing countries that request forbearance.

The International Monetary Fund has also said it is making $50 billion available through its emergency financing facilities for low income and emerging market countries that could seek support in fighting the coronavirus. The World Bank, for its part, has approved an increased $14 billion of financing to assist companies and countries in their efforts to tackle the coronavirus.^[vii]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have published a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, noting that members are using the  platform to share information and medical equipment with one another, for example using the Strategic Airlift International Solution (SALIS) programme to charter commercial transport aircraft to airlift supplies to one another. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have used SALIS to import plane loads of medical supplies.

How is the crisis affecting the European Union?

The European Union has found itself at the forefront of the crisis, with Italy experiencing the highest number of reported deaths in the world. It has been difficult for member states to support Italy as Spain, France, Germany and others are confronting their own crisis – guarding their resources in order to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak in their own countries.

The European Union has created greater fiscal space, but at least at first, individual states were somewhat left to manage this crisis alone.^[viii]

The European Union’s slow response led other countries to plug the gap. China has provided Italy with masks, with Beijing airlifting 30 tonnes of medical supplies to Rome.^[ix] A number of European countries have since rejected this equipment due to faults.^[x] Under a direct order from President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s defence ministry has said it will send eight mobile medic brigades, special disinfection vehicles, and other medical equipment to Italy.^[xi]

On a larger scale, the virus is exposing some of the fundamental weaknesses of the bloc. The European economy – already brittle and unequal – is being tested, and the downsides to globalisation, such as the accelerated transmission of disease, are evident. The extent to which the bloc has been tested was echoed by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen who said ‘when Europe really needed to be there for each other, too many initially looked out for themselves.’^[xii]

Nationalist leaders have capitalised on this sentiment, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán saying that the coronavirus crisis has exposed the Union’s ‘weaknesses’. Speaking on Hungarian state radio, he said that ‘help does not really come from here’. ‘Help we got from the Chinese, and I turned to members of the Turkic Council’.^[xiii]

Member states have disagreed over the economic response to the crisis, as well as the different responses imposed by individual countries. Germany, for example, introduced an export ban, which halted shipments of medical equipment to Hungary. The ban was lifted when the European Commission threatened Germany with an infringement proceeding.^[xiv]

The economic response to the pandemic is another area of contention. Whilst Italy, Spain, France and others argue that common debt should be a part of the package, others – led by the Netherlands and Germany – say it should not, preferring a temporary relaxation of fiscal rules.

 

How has the crisis strained international cooperation?

The crisis has emboldened authoritarian leaders to further entrench policies undermining democratic governance.

For example, Hungary’s Parliament has approved a bill to allow Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to rule by decree, effectively circumventing democratic institutions. The bill also includes five year prison terms for anyone spreading ‘fake news’, and has no end date or sunset clause.^[xv] Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has issued a statement in response calling for all emergency measures to be ‘limited to what is necessary and strictly proportionate’.^[xvi]

The spread of disinformation relating to the coronavirus has been rampant, with Viktor Orbán linking the virus to migrants, and United States President Donald Trump repeatedly referring to it as the ‘Chinese virus’, serving to deepen the divide between the two countries.^[xvii]

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has called the coronavirus crisis a ‘media trick’. He has dismissed media ‘hysteria’ over the coronavirus and called the illness ‘a little flu’. He has criticised the governors of states including Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro who have implemented isolation measures in their states after no measures were taken nationwide.^[xviii]

Even in China, where the coronavirus started, officials are blaming the outside world for the crisis. As China’s reported number of coronavirus cases allegedly nears zero, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian has drawn attention to a conspiracy theory that the virus originated in the United States.^[xix]

In the United States, the reorganisation of supply chains in the manufacturing and services sectors to limit their exposure to China has deepened the rift between the economic giants. China was angered further by Taiwan’s decision to donate 100,000 masks each week to the US. China has called the move ‘a rebellion against your ancestral land’.^[xx]

The decision by the US to ban all European travel with no prior warning was not well-received in Europe. The bloc was further scandalised when German officials alleged that President Trump had offered $1 billion to a German pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new COVID-19 vaccine.^[xxi]

The dominance of states that pursue misinformation and view the international sphere as a zero-sum game leaves little room for international leadership and cooperation.

 

What could have been done differently?

During previous international crises, such as the 2008 financial crash, international organisations have been mobilised to provide a rapid response. The G20 for example, held its inaugural leaders summit in the wake of the crash, to provide a forum for wealthy and developing nations to hold economic discussion.

Gordon Brown, the UK’s Prime Minister during the financial crisis and a key architect of the international discussions, has urged world leaders to create a temporary form of global government to tackle the medical and economic crises caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.^[xxii]

In the European Union, and across the West, where leaders had more time to prepare for the spread of the coronavirus, it is perhaps true that individual countries could have better coordinated their responses, especially those such as export and travel bans that have direct ramifications on other countries. The UK, for example, currently has at least 300,000 citizens trapped abroad as a result of countries closing borders.^[xxiii]

 

 

Where to next for international collaboration?

World leaders are already beginning to work together more cooperatively. In the EU, despite initial divisions between Northern and Southern Europe over the possibility of establishing a common debt instrument (‘corona bonds’) to finance the response, it appears some groundwork is now being laid. Indeed, Dutch Finance Minister Wopke Hoekstra has said ‘last week, we – and myself included – should have made it more clear that we want to help [Southern Europe]. We didn’t do that emphatically enough.’^[xxiv]

Statements like these suggest the coming weeks may elicit a greater degree of international cooperation.

There is the potential for nations to make better use of existing multilateral institutions, such as the UN Security Council and the G20, to better share information about the virus’ spread and containment, coordinate responses and vaccine trials, and provide assistance to nations struggling acutely with the virus.

Which countries are currently working on a vaccine?

As of 21st March, there were 48 vaccine candidates in preclinical evaluation, and two in clinical evaluation.^[i] A range of companies and academic institutions across the world are all working to develop a vaccine to immunize against COVID-19, including universities in the UK, Australia, Canada, the US and Hong Kong.

In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has announced record UK aid funding to find a coronavirus vaccine, announcing a further £210 million to the international coalition to find a vaccine, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Scientists at the University of Oxford are amongst those working to find a coronavirus vaccine.^[ii]

In China, 1000 scientists are at work on a vaccine. Researchers affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Sciences have developed what is considered the nation’s front-runner candidate for success and is recruiting volunteers for clinical trials.^[iii]

 

When is a vaccine likely to be ready for use?

As an optimistic estimate, a vaccine likely remains 12 to 18 months away. Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo, a senior researcher at the World Health Organization (WHO), has said that it would be ‘historic’ to find a vaccine that can be distributed to all countries in 18 months to defeat the coronavirus.^[iv]

Annelies Wilder-Smith, professor of emerging infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has warned that 18 months is already ‘extremely fast’ and is only possible with no glitches.^[v]

 

Has there been any cooperation on developing a vaccine?

The WHO follows the progress of all prospective vaccines that are being developed.

The first important international cooperation on developing a vaccine to stop the coronavirus came from China, who rapidly and openly shared the genomic sequence of the virus. Initially, however, Chinese officials had reprimanded Dr Li Wenliang, who had tried to ring early alarms that a cluster of infections could spin out of control. Nonetheless, the sharing of the genomic sequence has been a boon for researchers working against the clock to produce a preventative vaccine for COVID-19, as well as for other treatments and diagnostics.^[vi]

There is cooperation on many levels – including among companies that are ordinarily fierce competitors. In the US, for example, President Donald Trump has met executives of leading pharmaceutical companies to discuss their cooperation, including Gilead Sciences Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Moderna Inc and GlaxoSmithKIline Plc.^[vii]

Following the Ebola crisis in West Africa from 2014-16, mostly European countries including the UK and Norway, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation amongst others, began contributing millions of dollars to CEPI, a multinational organization to fund vaccine research. The Coalition in the past two months has funded research into eight of the most promising candidates to block the coronavirus.^[viii]

 

Will there be inequalities of access to the vaccine?

Given the nature of the coronavirus and the global demand for a vaccine, it is likely that demand will vastly outstrip supply. In the UK, it is likely that the government would prioritise vaccinating health and social care workers, along with those considered ‘high risk’. However, globally, competition for a vaccine will likely create inequalities of access to the vaccine. This is especially true for countries with weak or non-existent healthcare systems, where those with greater purchasing power are more likely to be able to access a vaccine than poorer citizens.

The WHO convenes governments, charities and vaccine producers to agree an equitable global distribution strategy, but it is unclear whether these discussions will carry much weight during the crisis and urgency of a pandemic. WHO discussions and resolutions are not legally binding.

 

Are there any problems with vaccine competition?

Hanging over efforts to make a vaccine is the shadow of nationalism – whichever country develops the first vaccine will have the opportunity to favour its own population and thus gain the upper hand in dealing with the economic and geostrategic implications of the crisis. Any new vaccine that proves potent against the coronavirus is likely to be in short supply, and hence there is likely to be fierce competition over its production. Ultimately, national political leaders would prefer to not be beholden to a foreign power, particularly a competitor or hostile state, for access to the vaccine that is needed during this crisis.

Nations housing vaccine production have, in the past, put in place measures to ensure ‘biomedical security’ in upholding national preference. In 2009, during the swine flu epidemic, a company in Australia that was among the first to develop a single-dose vaccine was required to satisfy demand in Australia before fulfilling export orders to the US and elsewhere.

American President Donald Trump, for example, has talked in meetings with pharmaceutical executives about making sure a vaccine is produced on American soil, to assure the US controls its supplies.^[ix] The United States stirred controversy by allegedly offering $1 billion to a German pharmaceutical company to buy monopoly rights to a new Covid-19 vaccine. German government officials alleged that President Trump had sought to lure German company CureVac to undertake its research and production in the US. Whilst CureVac denied it had received a takeover offer, its lead investigator made clear that an approach had taken place.^[x]

This rumour in turn led the European Commission to retaliate, pledging 80 million euros to the firm, which already receives support from the European vaccine consortium.^[xi] That same day, a Chinese company offered $133.3 million for an equity stake in a different German firm in the vaccine race, BioNTech.

This week in foreign policy, and domestic affairs, has been one like no other, with countries across the world introducing unprecedented measures to contain the spread of Covid-19. With news outlets saturated with stories and information relating to the coronavirus, we will continue to bring you foreign policy pieces you might have missed – as world activity continues.

Although relegated to a video-conference, EU leaders met this week with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the migrants crisis and the humanitarian situation in Idlib, Syria. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, and the UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson attempted to negotiate a resolution to the migrant crisis with Erdogan, as well as coordinate a humanitarian response to the situation in Idlib. Further details available on Euractiv.

Following the courts’ decision to declare a planned third runway at Heathrow ‘unlawful’, the proposed expansion has now been declared to be in a ‘deep freeze’, reports CityAM. Stefan Boscia writes that the aviation industry’s crisis, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, will likely delay a government decision on the expansion of one of the UK’s busiest and most international airports.

Over in the US, the Democratic Primary rumbles on, albeit with a reduction of live debates. Michael O’Hanlon examines for The Hill how different foreign policy would be under either of the frontrunners, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Whilst the candidates appear radically different, O’Hanlon suggests that upon examining their actions and proposals, their ideas could be reconciled. Many of Sanders’ specific proposals, for example, rooted in international cooperation, and the fight against climate change, inequality and authoritarianism, are much more mainstream than his ‘favorable comments about Fidel Castro back in the day might suggest’, creating overlap with the more centrist Biden.

The coronavirus has piled the pressure on the global economy, and for Iran – a nation subject to tough international sanctions and hit particularly hard by Covid-19 – the outlook is bleak. Patrick Wintour, Diplomatic Editor at The Guardian, reports that the UK has been pressuring the US behind the scenes to ease sanctions on Iran in order to help it fight the coronavirus outbreak. As 17,361 people in Iran have been infected with the virus, the Iranian embassy in London has appealed for sanctions to be lifted. The World Health Organization has suggested that the Iranian health ministry figures have underestimated the true numbers of those affected by the coronavirus by a fifth, meaning that the strain on the country is even greater.

Whilst the UK’s ‘transition period’ for leaving the EU is still due to expire at the end of this year, the Telegraph suggests that the UK is preparing to seek an extension to this transition period as both the UK and the EU are focused on the coronavirus crisis. The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has been confirmed to have the virus, and his British counterpart, David Frost, is reportedly self-isolating with symptoms, adding further credence to the idea that an extension will be sought before the June deadline expires.

 

The British Foreign Policy Group is an independent, non-partisan think tank based in London. Through dynamic research, events and networks, we seek to strengthen the UK’s international engagement, and advance our understanding of global affairs in the 21st Century.

For more original research, comment and events from the British Foreign Policy Group, sign up to our Newsletter.

Dissatisfaction with democracy is at a 25-year high, according to a University of Cambridge study published in January. 

The 2020 Global Satisfaction with Democracy report revealed that dissatisfaction has increased mainly amongst those in developed countries, with the number of people across 154 countries dissatisfied with the state of democracy in their countries rising by nearly 10% since 1995, from 47.9% to 57.5%. 

The problem is particularly acute in Europe. Whilst some European states, including Switzerland, Denmark and Norway reported all-time high levels of satisfaction, some of the report’s least satisfied democracies were also revealed to be in Europe. Romania, for example, revealed a 20% increase in dissatisfaction with democracy. 

Of particular interest in the report was the increase in satisfaction with democracy in many eastern European states. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have each seen a gradual strengthening of satisfaction with democracy. This comes at a time when the actual state of democracy in some of these nations is at risk, with increased threats to media freedoms and other human rights. 

In Hungary, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party has pushed through constitutional and legal changes since their election in 2010 that have not only consolidated the party’s control over independent institutions, but also hampered the operations of opposition groups, journalists, universities, and NGOs. George Soros-funded Central European University, for example, has been forced to move from its Budapest campus to Vienna. Freedom House, which measures the levels of freedom in countries around the world, downgraded Hungary’s status from ‘Free’ to ‘Partly Free’ in 2018 due to these attacks. 

The decline of media freedom, a key pillar of democracy, across Europe in 2018 is particularly alarming. The damaging effect of restricting a free press was evident in the planning of Holocaust memorial events in late January. Remembering the horrors of the Holocaust offers an opportunity to bring nations together and learn the lessons of oppression. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, it presents a political opportunity to distort history.

The Russian government has recently launched a campaign to whitewash the Soviet Union’s non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany and subsequent invasion of Poland, claiming instead that Poland bears responsiblity for starting the Second World War.

Poland, for its part, has been pushing its own version of history. Whilst still labelled as ‘Free’ by Freedom House, since the electoral victory of the Law and Justice Party in 2015, freedom of the press and of speech has taken a worrying turn.

In 2015, the Polish government proposed a law that would criminalise any mention of Polish complicity in the Holocaust. After an international outcry the law was watered down, but state media have successfully vilified and silenced critical voices – a dangerous and worrying precedent.

The distorting of rememberance of the Holocaust is one worrying example of what can happen when democracy is eroded and freedom of the media is not guaranteed. There is no limit to the truths that can be distorted when a hostile state controls the press. 

Upcoming research from the British Foreign Policy Group will explore the state of media freedom across the world and in the UK, as well as assessing the role the UK can play in protecting this vital pillar of democracy. In 2019, although there was an unprecedented fall in the number of journalists killed, the number of those killed in countries at peace continued to be as high as in previous years. Nearly half of all journalists currently imprisoned are held in China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 

The UK, traditionally a bastion of press freedom and democracy, is taking a strong leadership role in the fight for global media freedom. In 2019, the UK hosted the first ever Global Conference for Media Freedom, in collaboration with Canada.

Promoting the importance of media freedom internationally via this Conference is an important first step for the UK. Other, more difficult steps should now be taken. Now outside of the EU, Britain can talk more candidly about the declining state of freedom of the press amongst several EU members. This discussion should be extended to UK allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where state media acts as an extension of the government and challenging voices are suppressed. 

In order to champion democracy and human rights, these are steps worth taking.

 

For more original research, comment and events from the British Foreign Policy Group, sign up to our Newsletter.

What is the government’s new immigration plan?

 

Workers from the European Economic Area (EEA) countries currently have the automatic right to live and work in the UK irrespective of their salary or skill level. This will end on the 31st December, when the 11-month post-Brexit transition period is due to finish.  For those from outside the EU, there is already an immigration system in place based on points, which are awarded for speaking English, being sponsored by a company, and meeting a salary threshold of £30,000 – higher than the new threshold of £25,600.^[i]

Currently, a maximum of 21,000 work visas are awarded each year. There are four ‘tiers’ of visa assessed on points: temporary workers, students, skilled workers, and high-value migrants with ‘exceptional talent’ or major investors. Other types of non-points-based visas are available, for example for family members of migrants.^[ii]

Under the government’s new immigration policy, which will start from 1st January 2021, EU and non-EU citizens would be treated equally. The government is prioritising ‘high-skilled’ workers, in order to ‘reduce the levels of people coming to the UK with low skills’, according to Home Secretary Priti Patel.^[iii]

Potential migrants will be allocated points based on a number of factors: whether they have a job offer (20 points), whether they speak English (10 points), whether they have a PHD in a STEM subject (20 points), whether they have a job offer in an industry in which the UK has a shortage (20 points). Migrants will need 70 points in order to come to the UK. In order to pass the threshold, migrants must have a job offer from an ‘approved employer’ at an ‘appropriate skill level’ and must speak English to receive a visa.^[iv]

Crucially, there will be a salary threshold of £25,600 in order to come to work in the UK. This threshold could be lowered to £20,480 for job offers in ‘specific shortage occupations’ which currently include nursing, civil engineering, psychology and classical ballet dancing – or those with PhDs relevant to a specific job.

 

All migrants would not be entitled to access income-related benefits until after indefinite leave to remain is granted, which is usually after five years of living in the UK. Currently, EU nationals living in the UK can claim benefits if they are ‘economically active’. Non-EU citizens become eligible for benefits when they are granted permanent residency, which usually requires five years of living legally in the UK.

 

What is a skilled worker? 

 

Under the government’s plan, the definition of skilled workers would be expanded to include those educated to A-Level/Scottish Highers-equivalent standard. Waiting tables and certain types of farm worker would be removed from the new skilled category, but new additions would include carpentry, plastering and childminding.

 

Are there any exceptions?

 

The government has said a ‘global talent scheme’ will allow highly skilled scientists and researchers to come to the UK without a job offer.^[vi]

Students will also be allowed to come to study in the UK if they have been offered a place on a course, can speak, read, write and understand English, and have enough money to support themselves and pay for their course. A graduate immigration route is available to international students, who will be able to work, or look for work, in the UK at any skill level for up to two years after graduation.^[vii]

There are a range of other immigration routes for specialist occupations, including innovators, ministers of religion, sportspeople and to support the arts. The government has said their broad approach will be to open these existing routes available to non-EU citizens, to EU citizens.^[viii] They will not be creating a dedicated route for self-employed people, although they may be able to enter the UK under the innovator route.

Since the announcement of the immigration proposals on the 19th February, a Whitehall source has said the government is considering allowing talented younger migrants to enter Britain without a job offer. Younger applicants would be awarded extra points over older migrants, and applicants could receive points for past work experience, previous earnings and educational qualifications. These additions are expected to be introduced in 2022.^[ix]

 

How does the system compare with other countries’ immigration systems?

 

The Australian ‘points-based’ model has been hailed by politicians as the inspiration for the UK’s new model, but there are some crucial differences. In Australia, potential migrants need 65 points to work in the country, and a job offer is not a requirement for a visa. Being aged 25-33 will afford applicants 30 points, and points are also awarded for qualifications and work experience.^[x]

Canada^[xi] and New Zealand^[xii] also have points-based systems, based on language ability, education, skills and experience. It is possible to receive enough points to enter the countries without a job offer.

 

What are the economic impacts?

 

In the year ending March 2019, 612,000 people migrated into the UK and 385,000 people emigrated from it, leaving a net migration figure of 226,000.^[xiii] Formal study was the most common main reason for immigration (36%), and work the second most common (35%).

Academics who have studied the economic impacts of migration have suggested that the impact this new system will have on unskilled immigration from EU countries is limited, as net migration from the EU is already close to zero.^[xiv] Other analysts have suggested that the new proposals will have a significant effect on the labour market, making it harder for employers to recruit workers, and disproportionately affecting women as women tend to be more concentrated in low-paid occupations.^[xv] Others still, including the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), whose research informed the government’s proposals, suggest that a salary threshold would help to prevent undercutting in the labour market and improvements to the public finances.^[xvi]

Fiscally, it is estimated that in 2016/17 EEA migrants living in the UK contributed £2,300 more to the public purse than the average adult, while non-EEA migrant adults contributed over £800 less. The migrants who arrived in 2016 were estimated to make a net positive contribution to the UK’s public finances of approximately £26.9 billion over the duration of their time in the UK.^[xvii]

In terms of migration’s effect on the labour market, the Migration Advisory Committee has found that whilst there is little evidence of substantial impacts of EEA immigration on aggregate wages, there is some evidence that lower-skilled workers face a negative impact while higher-skilled workers benefit.^[xviii] Free movement has helped to facilitate this wage deflation to some extent, as the differences between EU countries’ labour markets has incentivised workers to come to the UK.^[xix] A reliance on cheaper overseas labour has contributed to GDP growth, although economists suggest it slows productivity growth as businesses fail to invest in their labour forces^[xx]

 

Which sectors will be most affected?

 

Business leaders have warned of crises for the care system, farmers, builders, and hospitality businesses, who currently rely on ‘unskilled’ workers from the EU to fill vacancies, many of whom are paid below the salary threshold of £25,600.^[xxi] These sectors have also not been designated ‘shortage occupations’ by the MAC and therefore will not qualify for a lower salary threshold.

Home Secretary Priti Patel has said businesses could recruit to fill shortages from among eight million ‘economically inactive’ potential workers in the UK. However, figures from the ONS reveal that most of these people are students, carers, sick, or retired. Fewer than two million of them say they would like to have a job.^[xxii]

The government has also said they will quadruple the current scheme in place for seasonal workers in agriculture to 10,000, as well as potentially introducing ‘youth mobility arrangements’ allowing 20,000 young people to come to the UK each year. Farming organisations say 70,000 temporary visas are needed across the UK.^[xxiii]

Conclusion

 

This dramatic reform is undoubtedly a significant overhaul of the UK’s immigration system. The Government has clearly identified immigration as an area in which public trust was low, and therefore has prioritised the reduction of overall numbers and the rebalancing of skill levels as its priority in these reforms. It is expected that the new immigration system will meet these objectives.

On an economic level, the reforms will bear genuine consequences for a number of different sectors and regions – many of whom will struggle to fill labour shortages and may not be able to effectively ‘plug holes’ through upskilling the native population or automation. The capacity of different types of organisations and businesses to adapt within the short transition period will necessarily be uneven.

The Home Office have said they will be releasing more details on the points-based system in due course, and it is hoped that a social integration strategy will also be forthcoming.

In a week filled with debate over the Cabinet reshuffle, we take a look at what you might have missed this week in foreign policy.

The ‘Jamaica 50’

One of this week’s biggest stories was the Home Office’s deportation of the Jamaica 50, many of whom arrived in the UK as children and have no links to Jamaica. Miranda Grell explores for the Independent the effect this scandal will have on black Britons’ trust in the government. The lessons learned from the Windrush scandal have not been learned by government, Grell says. ‘It appears that – as many black Britons feared – the government clearly does not consider people of Caribbean heritage part of the ‘Global Britain’ equation’, she writes.

COP26

This week also saw the launch of the government’s COP26 preparations. Reuters examine the diplomatic tests coming the UK’s way this year. The November conference will take place just days before the US Presidential elections that could return President Donald Trump to office, thus securing the US’s exit from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. The UK must shore up its diplomatic strengths in preparation for this eventuality, working behind the scenes to persuade emitters like China and India that action on climate change is necessary, whether or not the US does.

Digital Threats

Ahead of this year’s Security and Defence review, the Telegraph explores the growing threat of Russian cyber attacks and fake news, which is overtaking major conflict as a threat to the UK. RUSI’s Professor Malcolm Chalmers argues that new policy instruments are necessary to combat the growth of digital threats in light of the return to state-based competition. 

‘Davos for Defence’

In other defence news, the so-called ‘Davos for defence’ took place this week, which Britain was notably absent from, in terms of senior minister presence. The impact this mis-step will have on the government’s Global Britain agenda is explored in the Financial Times. The UK’s position as one of Europe’s biggest defence powers has usually meant a sizable delegation is sent to the conference. Given this year’s conference taking place just weeks after the UK left the EU, the government risks leaving Global Britain to be merely an empty slogan. 

AKK Quits

In big news for future UK-Europe relations, Angel Merkel’s heir apparent, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, quit as leader of the Christian Democrats on Monday. POLITICO looks at who Germany’s next leader is likely to be. Health Minister Jens Spahn, and Friedrich Merz, a prominent former MP and foe of Merkel, are the two most likely choices. Both have criticised Merkel’s ‘left-leaning’ policies on migration – something that will have ramifications for the whole of Europe.

If you would like to receive updates about the BFPG’s upcoming research, events and analysis, please subscribe to our newsletter.