Cameron and Calais: scaremongering about the jungle

Tensions have flared up this week as French and British politicians discuss the potential ramifications of Britain’s exit from the European Union. At the centre of the squabble is the expansion of the so-called Calais jungle were the United Kingdom to leave the EU. The Calais jungle is a migrant encampment three miles from the centre of the French town of Calais, close to the Eurotunnel across the Channel. More than 5,000 refugees are thought to have found shelter in France as they attempt to reach the UK by secretly boarding lorries, ferries and trains. Living conditions are poor and the French authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to address humanitarian needs without attracting further migrants.

Until last week, only a handful of observers would have associated the Calais jungle with the Brexit dispute. That is, until Prime Minister David Cameron announced that leaving the EU would expand the Calais jungle until it would ultimately reach the UK. Political pandemonium broke out following his announcement as British politicians from all sides rose to condemn the idea and members of Cameron’s own party accused him of scaremongering.

Judging by the European press, however, the PM may not be far from the truth, and the collapse of European border control agreements may only be the first of a series of negative repercussions that will affect the United Kingdom should it leave the EU following this year’s referendum.

European newspapers were quick to react following the announcement of an EU referendum, demonstrating a blend of indignation, exasperation, but mostly confusion in the face of an ill-timed assault on European stability. Why is David Cameron doing this and why is he doing it now? The Europe Union is painfully overseeing what will be remembered as its toughest stretch in history as it scrambles to manage one crisis after the other. Naturally, between the European debt crisis, the threat of terrorism and the humanitarian crisis at its doorstep – which has triggered an unparalleled surge in immigration – the possibility of a British exit is an unwelcome addition to a pretty disastrous agenda.

Earlier this month, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine ran a piece arguing that David Cameron has put a pistol to the European Union’s chest, as well as to his own, by engaging in a campaign for European reform tied to the threat of possible withdrawal. In response, European leaders will be looking to deter populists who see Brexit as a possible template for their own nationalist ambitions. Such populists include far-right leader Marine Le Pen, whose support is steadily increasing and who has publicly compared Britain leaving the EU to the fall of the Berlin wall. Deterring such rhetoric and protecting its signature projects is why the EU will punish the UK should it leave, even if it goes against its own interests. Restricting border controls between France and the UK is one of many ways in which this can be done.

A potential European backlash is only part of the problem, however, as Scottish nationalists have added themselves to the equation by threatening to press for another referendum on Scottish independence should Britain withdraw from the EU. The September 2014 referendum was closer than many expected, driving Cameron to roll up his sleeves on television in uncharacteristic fashion to convince the Scottish electorate that Britain is better together. However, with Britain out of the European Union, convincing the Scots may be a feat difficult to replicate, potentially breaking up the United Kingdom and further isolating a newly disintegrated nation.

It is therefore vitally important that Cameron obtains solid concessions from Britain’s renegotiation of its EU membership ahead of the referendum, or he may find himself tangled in laborious post-Brexit trade negotiations with displeased European neighbours in addition to fighting an uphill political battle domestically. To the desperation of Eurosceptic backbench MPs, his demands have been very carefully calibrated and some would argue watered down to increase his chances of success.

Nevertheless, no matter how keen Britain’s European partners are to maintain the UK within the Union, some commentators have argued that Cameron has picked a battle he cannot win by asking for concessions that go against principles that are at the very core of the European ideal. Such principles include the free movement of labour and the principle of non-discrimination, threatened by the Government’s call to restrict benefits to EU migrants until they have been in Britain for four years. If that is truly the case, the British Prime Minister must both rectify the UK’s zone of possible agreement and communicate more effectively his predicament to the British public ahead of the EU referendum, or else the Calais jungle will be the least of his worries.