Unpublished Letter to New European on xenophobia among UK minorities and the Brexit vote

This is copy of my letter to the "New European" which for some reason did not get printed. I know its contents are contentious but it still deserves to see the light of day.

Dear Editor, Simon Woolley's article about Operation Black Vote, entitled "Xenophobic Genie is out of the Bottle" (July 22) missed the most signficant link between the Black Vote and Xenophobia, namely the large number of ethnic minority voters who opted to vote Leave, and not necessarily for altuistic reasons about sovereignty. Of course I don't have the statistics but anectodally so many voters that I canvassed before the referendum, but also before other elections as well, made it adequately clear that "immigration is too high" and that these "Poles and Romanians were taking our jobs". Whether Indian, Somali, Chinese voters, even Polish, it made no difference, they considered these new immigrants were a threat to them and to the Britain that they wanted to identify themselves with. So many Indian voters had been beguiled too by the argument that if there were fewer Eastern Europeans it would make it possible for a less restrictive regime on immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent. Each time I heard this I shook my head in sorrow and thought of turkeys voting for Christmas. After the Brexit vote, the the racist genie was indeed out of the bottle, beginning with the graffiti at the Polish centre in Hammersmith, and the insulting comments towards black passengers on the Manchester bus, Every piece of graffiti in Hammersmith was not just an attack on Poles in the UK; it was an attack on all racial and religious minotities in this country. Racists may cherry pick from day to day in attacking in turn, Poles, or Indians, or Jamaicans, or Jews, but ultimately they fear and hate all of us who are not white and British. We minorities must stick tigether and resist submitting ourselves to the language and agenda of racism, as an attack on any one of us, is an attack on us all. Yours faithfully Wiktor Moszczynski

Dzieci polskie po Brexit

Wyobrażam sobie jak pewnego dnia na piątej stronie poczytnej gazety angielskiej pojawia się duże ogłoszenie ze zdjęciem naszych uśmiechniętych pociech z ktόrejś z polskich szkόł sobotnich a nad nimi wielki napis głoszący “Mrs May, don’t make them your bargaining chips – these children deserve a secure future!” (czyli “Pani Premier!, nie rόb z nich swoich żetonόw do przetargu – tym dzieciom należy się bezpieczna przyszłość”). Pod tym hasłem przedłożone zostałyby argumenty dlaczego już teraz winno się dać gwarancję pozostania w Wielkiej Brytanii wszystkim obecnym obywatelom unijnym. Czy stać naszym organizacjom na taki wydatek? Myślę że przy pomocy licznych polskich przedsiębiorstw, chyba tak. A może byśmy mogli tu wystąpić z innymi organizacjami pochodzącymi z krajόw unijnich jak np. Institut Francais czy Goethe Institut. Czy Zjednoczenie Polskie byłoby w stanie to przeprowadzić? Efekt byłby dramatyczny. Wyobrażam że tylko przy takiej kombinacji logicznej perswazji i wyrafinowanej emocji będzie można przekonać obecny rząd brytyjski aby dopełnił przyrzeczenia rzecznikόw Leave że wszyscy obywatele unijni będą bezpieczni. Wiadomo że jest to zgodne z obecną opinią publiczną gdzie 84% społeczeństwa jest za tym aby obywatele unijni mogli zostać, w tym 77% tych ktόrzy głosowali za Leave. Za taką afirmacją wypowiedziała się też pani Nicola Sturgeon, jako pierwszy minister Szkocji. Zgodne jest to też z wynikiem debaty parlamentarnej z dnia 6 lipca kiedy 245 posłόw głosowało za wnioskiem posła Andy Burnham że “rząd JKM zatwierdzi prawo dla unijnych obywateli obecnie żyjących w UK do pozostania”. Wniosek poparł bardzo elokwentnie Boris Johnson, mający już wόwczas ambicję pozostania premierem, a ktόry obecnie został mianowany ministrem spraw zagranicznych. Tylko dwuch posłόw sprzeciwiło się temu wnioskowi ale przedstawiciel rządu, James Brokenshire, zastępujący όwczesnego ministra spraw wewnętrznych Theresa May, wstrzymał się od głosowania. Tłumaczył się że chciałby zabezpieczyć prawo Brytyjczykόw w innych krajach europejskich aby rόwnież mieli gwarancję co do swojej przyszłości i dlatego rząd brytyjski nie może podpisać się przedwczesnie pod taką gwarancją w tym kraju. Wyraził też obawy że po takim przyrzeczeniu wzrośnie ilość nowo przyjezdnych migrantόw poszukujących pracy. Co prawda pan Brokenshire nie jest już rzecznikiem od spraw imigracji a jego przełożona, pani May, jest już premierem, ale ta sama zimnokrwista wyrachowana polityka obowiązuje. Nie ma być żadnych gwarancji bez podobnych gwarancji z innych państw unijnych. Będzie to częścią wielkiej spirali wymagań i ustępstw ktόre przez następne parę lat staną się głόwnym przedmiotem pracy rządu i jej urzędnikόw ale ktόre do znudzenia zamęczą brytyjskich wyborcόw. Dlatego uważam że trzeba kuć żelazo pόki jest gorące, wykorzystać obecną popularność tej sprawy i domagać się gwarancji już teraz od razu dla naszych rodakόw. Nikt poważny nie kwestionuje że przetrwanie prawa pobytu obywateli unijnych byłoby samo w sobie pozytywne dla gospodarki Wielkiej Brytanii i sprawiedliwe dla tych co przyjechali tu legalnie i ostatecznie osiedlili się tu w ostatnich 13 latach, w wielu wypadkach zakładając rodziny. Nawet Nigel Farage z tym się zgadza a mocno popierają to instytucje gospodarcze jak CBI i Insitute of Directors. Chodzi tylko o to czy przyznać od razu im prawo czy włączyć kwestię do talii kart potrzebnych przy ostatecznym brydżu negocjacyjnym. Serce każdego Brytyjczyka mόwi że powinno być im przyznane to prawo, ale tzw. pragmatyzm rządowy ociąga się. Myślę jadnak że nawet w tym swoim pseudo-logicznym rozumowaniu rząd jest w błędzie.

Po pierwsze, wszelki zwiększony najazd (tzw. “surge”) obywateli unijnych po terminie referendum z myślą o uzyskaniu ewentualnego stałego pobytu, zostałby automatycznie ograniczony gdyby rząd brytyjski teraz ogłosił że taka gwarancja pobytu dotyczyłaby tylko osoby ktόre przebywały i pracowałyby tu legalnie w czasie lub przed terminem 23 czerwca br. Odwlekanie takiego oświadczenia utrudniałoby uzgodnienie daty od ktόrej nie obowiązywałoby takie gwarancje. Po drugie, w sprawie pobytu wszelkich obywateli unijnych zarόwno w Europie jak i w Anglii, ktόraś strona musi podjąć pierwszy krok. Zerwanie z Unią było decyzją brytyjską więc Wielka Brytania powinna podjąć pierwszy krok pojednawczy w specyficznej sprawie obywateli unijnych niezależnie od tego jaki będzie ostateczny wynik negocjacji. Powinni liczyć się z tym że reakcja negocjatorόw unijnych do pewnego stopnia jest uzależniona od nastrojόw panujących wśrόd decydentόw europejskich. A tu akurat znaki są dobre. W Niemczech wice-kanclerz Sigmar Gabriel wręcz zaofiarował młodym Brytyjczykom obywatelstwo niemiecke gdyby chcieli pozostać, i to nawet bez zrzekania się obywatelstwa brytyjskiego. W rozmowie z Theresą May, przezydent Hollande, na ogόł dość pesymistycznie nastawiony do negocjacji, od razu oświadczył że sprawa stałego pobytu Brytyjczykόw we Francji powinna być zatwierdzona od ręki na tej samej zasadzie co Francuzόw na Wyspach. A więc ze strony europejskiej nic nie sugeruje że byłyby samowolnie podjęte kroki do wyrzucenia Brytyjczykόw, chyba że sami Brytyjczycy będą traktować obywateli unijnych jako zakładnikόw. Pozatem jest i trzeci powόd. Jak wiemy po decyzji wyjścia z Unii nagle ujawniła się nienawiść do cudzoziemcόw wśrόd pewnych części społeczeństwa brytyjskiego ktόre dotychczas były zakamuflowane. Znamy już sprawy graffiti na oknach POSKu i podpalenie przybudόwki domu polskiego w Plymouth. Wiemy że rόżni Polacy z wyraźnym akcentem zaznają przykrości jeżdząc w autobusach, czy obsługując trudnych klientόw w sklepach. Nie tylko Polacy oczywiście, rόwnież Rumuni, Włosi. Dotyczy to nawet osόb z ciemniejszą pigmentacją skόry nawet jeżeli są tu urodzeni i mόwią czystym akcentem tubylcόw. Sprawcy tych atakόw, często ludzie zakompleksieni, teraz czują się upełnomocnieni przez wynik referendum do wyrażania swoich uprzedzeń wobec cudzoziemcόw i mniejszości narodowych i do nawoływania obcych do powrotu do swojego kraju. Oczywiście rząd to potępia. Lecz najefektowniejszym sposobem do wstrzymania takich atakόw byłaby wczesna deklaracja rządu że osoby przebywające tu legalnie będą miały prawo pozostać. Wtedy grożby prześladowcόw okazałaby się bezpostawne. Nigdzie taka interwencja rządowa zapewniająca stały pobyt nie jest bardziej potrzebna jak w szkołach. Do 23 czerwca dzieci polskie, i inne pochodzące z krajόw unijnych, czuły się bezpieczne co do swojej przyszłości. Decyzja o Brexit zachwiała ich światem. Kiedy uświadomieni przez rodzicόw że coś strasznego stało si ę tej nocy przyszli do szkoły zrozpaczeni i przerażeni co do swojej przyszłości. Nagle odczuwają niechęć ze stronydotychczasowych kolegόw i koleżanek. Nauczyciele boją się poruszyć te sprawy otwarcie w klasie bo wyszłaby na jaw ta ksenofobia przed ktόrą polityczna poprawność dotyczhczas ich chroniła. Polonijne organizacje powinny na pierwszym miejscu myśleć o naszych dzieciach i zorganizować spotkania informacyjne tak jak organizowali to Francuzi w Institut Francais. Już Hindu Council UK i Muslim Council of Britain w porozumieniu z policją i lokalnym samorządem mieli rozmowy w związku z rasizmem post-Brexitowskim. Na takie zebrania nalega z chęcią pomocy biuro Burmistrza Londynu. Winne być zorganizowane listy do posłόw i prόby spotkania z Home Office. 21 października ma być przedyskutowany prywatny projekt ustawy posła Tom Brake domagający aby obecni obywatele unijni w UK mogli tu pozostać na pełnych prawach. Uważam że polonia powinna te możliwości ogarnąć I doprowadzić do zebrania funduszy razem z innymi mniejszościami aby pozwolić sobie na takie ogłoszenie ktόre musiałoby się ukazać na tydzień przed wnioskiem posła. Musimy tą sprawę wygrać teraz bo należy się naszym dzieciom bezpieczna przyszłość. Wiktor Moszczyński Tydzień Polski 29 lipiec 2016 Po pierwsze, wszelki zwiększony najazd (tzw. “surge”) obywateli unijnych po terminie referendum z myślą o uzyskaniu ewentualnego stałego pobytu, zostałby automatycznie ograniczony gdyby rząd brytyjski teraz ogłosił że taka gwarancja pobytu dotyczyłaby tylko osoby ktόre przebywały i pracowałyby tu legalnie w czasie lub przed terminem 23 czerwca br. Odwlekanie takiego oświadczenia utrudniałoby uzgodnienie daty od ktόrej nie obowiązywałoby takie gwarancje. Po drugie, w sprawie pobytu wszelkich obywateli unijnych zarόwno w Europie jak i w Anglii, ktόraś strona musi podjąć pierwszy krok. Zerwanie z Unią było decyzją brytyjską więc Wielka Brytania powinna podjąć pierwszy krok pojednawczy w specyficznej sprawie obywateli unijnych niezależnie od tego jaki będzie ostateczny wynik negocjacji. Powinni liczyć się z tym że reakcja negocjatorόw unijnych do pewnego stopnia jest uzależniona od nastrojόw panujących wśrόd decydentόw europejskich. A tu akurat znaki są dobre. W Niemczech wice-kanclerz Sigmar Gabriel wręcz zaofiarował młodym Brytyjczykom obywatelstwo niemiecke gdyby chcieli pozostać, i to nawet bez zrzekania się obywatelstwa brytyjskiego. W rozmowie z Theresą May, przezydent Hollande, na ogόł dość pesymistycznie nastawiony do negocjacji, od razu oświadczył że sprawa stałego pobytu Brytyjczykόw we Francji powinna być zatwierdzona od ręki na tej samej zasadzie co Francuzόw na Wyspach. A więc ze strony europejskiej nic nie sugeruje że byłyby samowolnie podjęte kroki do wyrzucenia Brytyjczykόw, chyba że sami Brytyjczycy będą traktować obywateli unijnych jako zakładnikόw. Pozatem jest i trzeci powόd. Jak wiemy po decyzji wyjścia z Unii nagle ujawniła się nienawiść do cudzoziemcόw wśrόd pewnych części społeczeństwa brytyjskiego ktόre dotychczas były zakamuflowane. Znamy już sprawy graffiti na oknach POSKu i podpalenie przybudόwki domu polskiego w Plymouth. Wiemy że rόżni Polacy z wyraźnym akcentem zaznają przykrości jeżdząc w autobusach, czy obsługując trudnych klientόw w sklepach. Nie tylko Polacy oczywiście, rόwnież Rumuni, Włosi. Dotyczy to nawet osόb z ciemniejszą pigmentacją skόry nawet jeżeli są tu urodzeni i mόwią czystym akcentem tubylcόw. Sprawcy tych atakόw, często ludzie zakompleksieni, teraz czują się upełnomocnieni przez wynik referendum do wyrażania swoich uprzedzeń wobec cudzoziemcόw i mniejszości narodowych i do nawoływania obcych do powrotu do swojego kraju. Oczywiście rząd to potępia. Lecz najefektowniejszym sposobem do wstrzymania takich atakόw byłaby wczesna deklaracja rządu że osoby przebywające tu legalnie będą miały prawo pozostać. Wtedy grożby prześladowcόw okazałaby się bezpostawne. Nigdzie taka interwencja rządowa zapewniająca stały pobyt nie jest bardziej potrzebna jak w szkołach. Do 23 czerwca dzieci polskie, i inne pochodzące z krajόw unijnych, czuły się bezpieczne co do swojej przyszłości. Decyzja o Brexit zachwiała ich światem. Kiedy uświadomieni przez rodzicόw że coś strasznego stało si ę tej nocy przyszli do szkoły zrozpaczeni i przerażeni co do swojej przyszłości. Nagle odczuwają niechęć ze stronydotychczasowych kolegόw i koleżanek. Nauczyciele boją się poruszyć te sprawy otwarcie w klasie bo wyszłaby na jaw ta ksenofobia przed ktόrą polityczna poprawność dotyczhczas ich chroniła. Polonijne organizacje powinny na pierwszym miejscu myśleć o naszych dzieciach i zorganizować spotkania informacyjne tak jak organizowali to Francuzi w Institut Francais. Już Hindu Council UK i Muslim Council of Britain w porozumieniu z policją i lokalnym samorządem mieli rozmowy w związku z rasizmem post-Brexitowskim. Na takie zebrania nalega z chęcią pomocy biuro Burmistrza Londynu. Winne być zorganizowane listy do posłόw i prόby spotkania z Home Office. 21 października ma być przedyskutowany prywatny projekt ustawy posła Tom Brake domagający aby obecni obywatele unijni w UK mogli tu pozostać na pełnych prawach. Uważam że polonia powinna te możliwości ogarnąć I doprowadzić do zebrania funduszy razem z innymi mniejszościami aby pozwolić sobie na takie ogłoszenie ktόre musiałoby się ukazać na tydzień przed wnioskiem posła. Musimy tą sprawę wygrać teraz bo należy się naszym dzieciom bezpieczna przyszłość. Wiktor Moszczyński Tydzień Polski 29 lipiec 2016

Attack on POSK is attack on all minorities

The Polish presence in this country was first felt before we even settled here. Our airmen participated in the Battle of Britain, our sailors sank U-boats in the North Atlantic, our paratroopers dropped from the skies at Arnhem, our soldiers fought along with British soldiers in Norway and France, and Egypt and Italy. Our parents and grandparents, denied a safe homeland in Communist Poland, settled here after the War while we attended school here, speaking Polish at home and English in the class room, while our classmates tried in vain to pronounce our difficult surnames. We fitted easily into the economic and social landscape of Britain but also kept our separate identity inside our Polish institutions such as the Polish Social and Cultural Centre in King Street which was set up in the 1970s to house our Polish library, Polish theatre, the Polish Education Society and many other Polish institutions, but it has also been a centre for the community at large, including Hammersmith & Fulham Council, which for many years rented out office space in our building. New waves and generations of Poles have moved into the UK since the 1980s, the largest after 2004 when Poland joined the European Union. Poles have been a much more visible presence in the last 10 years with Polish becoming the second most commonly used language at home in the UK, Polish shops and businesses sprouting up everywhere, and mass attendance at more than 100 Polish parish churches throughout the UK. There are some 30,000 Polish-speaking children in London schools alone and 97,000 Polish citizens on the London electoral register. Largely as UK taxpayers, we contribute to the prosperity of Hammersmith and of London and integrate in to the economic and social fabric of this country though we still celebrate our distinctive local culture, our food and our special historic Anglo-Polish relationship from during the War. Our Polish centre in Hammersmith still invites all that is best not only in Polish culture and also in the rich variety of culture and social life of Hammersmith as a whole. Unfortunately, on the morning of June 25,, less than 48 hours after the referendum vote, the building invited something altogether different, an obscene racist message scrawled across its front entrance. This was something our building had never experienced before since it was built in 1976. Though within hours it was washed off by our vigilant staff, it reappeared in every British newspaper, every news channel, not only here, but abroad, including in Poland. Seeing the outrageous slogan reproduced was a painful shock for all Poles here, but also for local residents and schoolchildren in Hammersmith, for our councillors and our MP who raised the matter in Parliament, and even for the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, whose condemnation of this desecration of our centre was repeated in all the media. Of course what happened to us was not an isolated incident. It was mirrored by various incidents, some verbal, some physical, throughout the length and breadth of this country. The Brexit vote seemed to have released in some Leave voters a sense of empowerment to insult and intimidate and to give expression to their feral prejudices and fear of foreigners, which they had suppressed until now. For of course we must recognize the incident at our Polish Centre as not just an attack on Poles in this country, but an attack on all ethnic and religious minorities. The perpetrators of such an outrage, hate all of us. They may cherry-pick this or that minority, today the Poles or Romanians, before it was the Somalis, or the Indians, or Jamaicans, or the Jews, but they hate and fear us all. And the important lesson here is that our minorities should stand together and not join in the baiting of this or that minority, this or that group of immigrants. Don’t we know of members from some minorities make disparaging comments in the past about other minorities and wishing them to be deported, and vice versa? Friends, whatever our nationality, or race or religion, we must not let racists and their slogans dictate our language and seek to divide us. We must show each other solidarity whoever is attacked. Dear friends, I cannot thank enough those many many citizens of Hammersmith and beyond who sent us expressions of support after that incident. We remember those schoolchildren posing with pictures on our front door steps. A big thank you also to the police for responding so quickly. For the next 5 days our staff and volunteers, their eyes welling with tears of gratitude, battled with the mountains of flowers and sympathetic cards and gifts of cakes and toys and sushi sent by English friends and admirers to our building. It was very moving and we are all very very grateful for this show of solidarity. And we are similarly grateful for the vote in the House of Commons urging the government to allow all EU citizens currently here and working legally to be allowed to stay with their families, after the Brexit negotiations are finished. It is both a humanitarian and a practical solution, it will ensure our continuous input into Britain’s prosperity, give our communities back the sense of security undermined by the Brexit vote and the incidents that followed it, and it will be a clear message to all racists that their vile expressions of hate are nothing but empty threats. The new British government must make that policy official now. In our unity lies our strength. Or, as in that wonderful word Poland gave to the world 30 years ago – Solidarność. Wiktor Moszczyński, on behalf of Polish Social and Cultural Centre Speech at Ravenscourt Park for the Hammersmith and Fulham Council Unity March. 17th July 2016

Post-Brexit thoughts

What I predicted a week ago. Really frightening is the vacuum of power. The PM is in power with no moral authority and the Leavers are contradicting each other about the next step as they are not in power themselves and can only speculate but have no common plan. Also Labour too divided to have any influence as their voters outside London have voted to leave. Europe too will be utterly divided too with many in France, Sweden, Denmark and Italy pushing to leave the EU, while Juncker and Merkel still rumble on about ever closer union. Can a more reflective Donald Tusk give some lead when his old Eurocentric vision for central Europe appears dead? UK departure leaves uncertain the next step for those countries outside the euro like Poland being isolated by the euro bloc and the pressure from Polish Europhobes to push Poland out of the obligation to join the euro could trigger an anti-EU referendum that even Kaczynski may fail to stop. Also we must fight now for the rights of Poles actually here over rather than those wanting to come. 30,000 Polish-speaking children in London, more to come, probably twice that in the UK, what are their rights and that of their families in the future going to be? The leading Leavers say Poles will be all right but nobody really knows as the Leavers do not see the logic of what they have done and are not in power. And there will be massive pressure on Poles in East of Eangland and North East to leave. Our task for the future is huge, At least Sadiq Khan should try and defend the London Poles. Tens of thoudands will be determined to stay in UK and will applu for UK citizenship. Will they get it? Many second and third generation Poles in UK will be applying for Polish citizenship to be able to travel around Europe and find work there. Of course Scotland can leave, the Sinn Fein will push for a United Ireland thus causing a bitter even hostile reaction from Protestant mahjoity and the pound will take several weeks to stabilize as the power vacuum continues. The Obama project for UK and Europe is in tatters, Trump and Putin will be happy and China may be happy to see the 500 million strong EU market start to fall part leaving them as the biggest trading block in the future.

Why Poles in UK will not be safe after Brexit

So far Brexit has been seen as a measure that would affect Poles who are only now arriving in the UK or are planning to do so. There appears to be a growing presumption that, actually, Poles residing here already are in no danger. Several times politicians and business supporters of Brexit, such as John Longworth at the public meeting on Brexit organized by the United Poles on April 21 in the Ognisko Club in Kensington have assured Poles residing and working here, that they, and their families, "are safe." Wrong! Of course, in the first years after a negative referendum to leave the EU, it is argued that in theory nothing should change. Prime Minister Cameron would have a certain period in which to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon in order to officially start negotiations with the Union on future legal and economic ties between the EU and the UK. These negotiations should officially take up about two years. The most favourable solution for us Poles in case of Brexit would be a model of relations based the current status of Norway or Switzerland where the United Kingdom would continue to have full access to the duty-free single market of the EU but in this case, the United Kingdom would continue to be open to the free movement of not only capital but also of the work force. It is likely that following a victorious referendum campaign the new anti-European policymakers in the British government would not have agreed to this model of relations, aware that it was mainly spooked hostility of the British electorate to all new immigrants which would have been the deciding factor for supporters of Brexit. Restrictions against new immigrants would come into force only after the conclusion of the negotiations, although the feverish national debate on the subject would begin to be felt soon after the referendum. Panicky employers and frightened local officials would be aware that the mood had changed while hysterical right-wing Conservatives and UKIP members vie with each other in seeking harsher solutions for immigrants in general. We are in unknown territory here as such a new form of agreement with the European Union for a former member of the EU is unprecedented. So the atmosphere in the tabloids and in local and national government would be quite tense for Poles right from the beginning after the vote. Various forms of local discrimination could have started, in health services, job centres, schools, places of employment as the future looks more and more uncertain. We know what in these circumstances would face new Polish visitors after the initial two-year period, once EU arrangements no longer apply. Right of entry would only for restricted to tourists and to students who have an assured place at their university, but not for those looking for work. For those who would have obtained an agreed contract to work in advance would now require an entry visas with their work permit (currently £ 575 for contracted workers under three years and £ 1,151 if their contract exceeds three years). Moreover, they would pay £ 200 a year for health insurance. Tuition fees for Polish students would be elevated to the much higher level of ordinary foreign students. This is all as could be expected. But what about the Poles already resident in the UK who are allegedly "safe"? If you are staying here less than five years and have not yet obtained permanent residence any loss of employment would no longer be cushioned by out of work benefits or any low pay by in work benefits. The national living wage would not apply to you once your current job is finished. Theoretically there may even be no guarantee of child benefit, and of course it goes without saying that a benefit for a child who is resident in Poland would be no longer be considered. If the child was not born here he or she would not even be sure of a guaranteed place in the local school. Besides Polish citizens would lose their right to vote in local elections even though they pay council tax, and any travel between Poland and the UK, even for Christmas or for dental treatment, would require a Polish passport, and no longer an ID. If a Pole were to work illegally here or have some minor legal infringement on their record in Poland or the UK they could be stopped at the border and even face permanent expulsion, regardless of whether they have a family here or not. Poles that have been here less than 5 years would be subject to the same conditions as non-EU workers. If already living here, any permit for a new job in the UK would have to be approved by the Home Office and the current cost of a new visa for a 3-year contract for someone already legally in the UK would be £ 664. They would again be subject to the above-mentioned health insurance of £200 per year, regardless of whether they pay National Insurance contribution in this country already. If self-employed you need to be aware that current employees from countries outside the EU have had the right to work only if their earnings are at least £18,600 per year. In April this year the minimum income level was increased to £ 35,000. How many Poles could boast that they get such a salary? Perhaps Poles and other EU nationals here without permanent residence would find ways to alleviate these rules through various appeals based on their human rights, but ultimately all will be subject to what the British government negotiates with the Union. Following a complete break without the right to free movement of labour, bilateral working arrangements with EU countries could be established. Thus, for example, the French or Germans could be treated differently than, say, Poles and Romanians? Here, much will depend on the effectiveness of Polish diplomacy, but that Polish consulates will already be overwhelmed defending the rights of individual Polish families wrong-footed by the new circumstances. Yet even those who already have permanent residence after five years, or even have British citizenship after six years of residence, would still not be free from problems arising from Brexit. The above-mentioned income level of £35,000 would also apply, for example, as the lowest income ceiling for a British citizen seeking to reunite permanently with his wife or child living in Poland. Furthermore to invite your grandmother to look after your children for a longer period would require an official written invitation approved by the Home Office. In the case of access to social benefits, these would be withdrawn if, for family reasons, such a British citizen should wish to live in Poland for a certain period. Besides, even for those British citizens by birth from the post-war Polish immigration would feel the effects of Brexit should they want to live their last years in Poland, and find that their shrinking British pension is no longer index-linked. Am I painting the picture in excessively black colours? Well of course it may never happen. The British may reject Brexit altogether in the referendum in June. Or they may still, after deciding to leave the EU, opt to continue, like Norway and Iceland, within the single market thus largely accepting the terms of free movement of labour, though I think that particular option as being unlikely. Otherwise we are in unmarked territory and anything can be decided dependent on the volatility of public opinion and an unsteady divided government. That is why such a dark scenario is still possible and necessary to consider. It cannot be ruled out. That is why so many Poles and other EU nationals are agreeing with me and are applying in ever larger amounts for British citizenship. According to the Home Office, their number increased by 40% in the last twelve months. Red Squirrel, publishers of the text book "Britishness" which prepares candidates for the exam needed to qualify for British nationality, claim that recently the number of their book sale increased from 550 to 2250 a month. Conversely British citizens who want to continue to travel and work around Europe despite Brexit are beginning to submit applications for citizenship of EU countries such as France and Ireland. For the same reason British citizens of Polish origin, many born here as the second generation of the post-war Polish community, are beginning to file for the Polish citizenship they are entitled to and for Polish passports so that they can continue to own property in Poland and travel around Europe as EU citizens. That is why I still cannot understand why so many Poles living here with British citizenship are thinking about voting for Brexit? Poland is desperate to have the UK remain in the Union as a counterbalance to Germany and France and to head the non-euro block of countries. So pro-Brexit Poles in this country seem oblivious to the national interests of their home country and to the rights of their fellow countrymen in the UK. Polish citizens in the UK without British nationality will no longer have the right to vote in the referendum on 23rd June. They can only watch helplessly as the British electorate decides their fate. But at least the 9744 Polish Londoners without British citizenship who are registered to vote in the mayoral election in London and who constitute 1.5% of the entire London electorate, can still do themselves and Poland one last favour. So far, London has been represented by Boris Johnson, the most flamboyant campaigner for Brexit even though London has largely got a pro-EU bias. Johnson’s Conservative successor as candidate for Mayor, Zac Goldsmith, is also unfortunately a supporter of Brexit. Therefore the patriotic Pole who cares about his country has a clear task in this election. The first vote they can give to Prince Jan Zylinski, the Polish independent candidate, but their second vote should go to a candidate who wants London to remain in the Union. They have a choice between the liberal-democrat Caroline Pidgeon, the Green candidate, Sian Berry, or the Labour candidate Sadiq Khan (although, according to polls, Sadiq Khan has the only chance of defeating Goldsmith). Finally, with a pro-European spokesman for London elected as Mayor with Polish votes, Polish citizens in London can feel they have improved their chance of defeating Brexit and retaining their current legal status of being Polish and EU citizens in this country. Wiktor Moszczyński Polish Weekly April 29, 2016

In Defence of Lech Walesa

.

As a former Chairman of the Polish Solidarity Campaign in this country in the early 1980s I was shocked by the peremptory haste with which the Polish Institure of National Remembrance recently revealed and verified evidence of collaboration with the police in the early 1970s by Polish national hero and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa Lech Walesa, as chairman of the of the first independent trade union in Soviet dominated Eastern Europe, was a charismatic leader of the peaceful workers revolt that shattered the very foundations of Soviet power not only in Poland but ultimately in its neighbouring countries. There would have been no collapse of the Berlin Wall without the Solidarity saga a decade earlier. Obviously we knew that Mr Walesa had his personal faults but that did not undermine in any way his courage, his gut instinct about his Communist opponents and his extrarrdonary sense of responsibility for the country that he was suddenly entrusted, without any preparation, to lead. His picture, like that of Nelson Mandela, was automatically recognized around the world as the inspiration for peaceful revolution and for the eventual transition from tyranny to fredom and democracy. With time we learned that earlier, as a simple electrician and participant in the 1970 strikes, he had believed the promises of the Gierek government to set up a fairer society and appeared even to have retained contact with the security forces following his arrest and interrogation. We realized that every great man may have his faults and felt that this in no way diminished what he achieved in the years that followed. We knew that the Communist authorities did everything possible to besmirch his name with falsified testimonies and forgeries when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983. That is why we are concerned at the unseemly haste with which the current Polish Institute is drawing conclusions from the latest documents of Lech Walesa's apparent cooperation with the police. We deplore the attempt by some in the new Polish government to denigrate him as a result of his earlier criticism of their government. In seeking to blacken his name abroad they are seeking to undermine not only Lech Walesa's international prestige but the prestige of their own country as well. For this they may have to answer to Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the all powerful chairman of the curret ruling party, who was responsible for launching and master-minding Lech Walesa's succesful presidential campaign in 1990. Shame on them!

Can the Polish Government assist the British Prime Minister in winning the EU referendum in UK?

Memorandum to Mrs Agnieszka Kowalska, Deputy Director for European Affairs at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw.

It is known that the continued participation of the United Kingdom as a full member of the European Union remains an important objective in Polish foreign policy, as long as it does not lead to a need to renegotiate the EU treaties. The two countries have many common strategic interests in security, energy and in protecting the interests of EU countries that are so far outside the euro zone. The list of demands for her EU partners from the British government is not very specific because it is dependent to some extent on: a / the whims of the general public in Britain and particularly from the growing reluctance of older voters to tolerate uncontrolled access to the UK labour market and to the UK health and welfare services and social benefits by people from abroad, regardless of whether or not they are EU citizens and b / on objections from businesses, and above all from small businesses, protesting against the excess of regulations set by the European Parliament. British concerns regarding "ever closer union" stem directly from the fact that this slogan automatically motivates officials and members of the European Parliament to create new rules and directives on harmonization of everyday products and services that seem completely superfluous. And besides the British feel that this threatens their sense of national sovereignty which they had managed to retain even during the Second World War, when Britain was the only European country participating in that war that never had to survive the humiliation of defeat and occupation. For sure this statement could restructured into a similar formula that gives subsidiarity to the clause by adding a phrase, such as “at the appropriate pace for each EU member country”. The British government would even like reverse some of the Directives, particularly as regards employment rights within the Social Charter, but any changes (and especially a withdrawal from the Charter) would not have received the support from the opposition parties in the UK, particularly Labour and the SNP, and without their support, Prime Minister Cameron could actually lose the referendum. And besides, mechanisms for toning down or excluding irksome clauses and regulations already exist provided that a sufficient number of other EU countries would agree to support such changes. In the case of free movement of workers across EU borders, the British government is already aware that it can no longer undermine the basic principle of the right and entitlement of every EU citizen to receive benefits and services of the country they have settled in provided such provisions are the right of that country's own citizens. There can be no discrimination between nationals and other EU citizens. British public opinion is not so resentful of access to its own benefits to anyone, regardless of nationality, if they were known to have already made a contribution to the prosperity of the country by working here and paying national insurance (NI), as well as income tax and council tax. The most intense objections relate to recipients of benefits which are obtained within the first weeks of arrival in the UK, and these include access to benefits for the unemployed or working at low wages (e.g. income support, job seekers allowance, working tax credit), housing benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, without previously having made any contribution to the state exchequer. British voters suspect that the amount arriving to work and claim benefits from other EU countries is getting out of the control of the UK authorities and that the main motivation for such arrivals are generous (in their own opinion) benefits which have not yet been merited. In any event, such a perception of abuse of benefits and possible fraud persists, and when statistics are produced showing that the percentage of such abuses are rare, the public remains sceptical. Poland is also acutely aware of the need to stabilize the current excess of 140,000 young Poles a year travelling abroad permanently to other EU states. These departures exacerbate the threat of long-term demographic decline in Poland. If these people going abroad for work send part of their income back to Poland for their families then their departure still remains a relatively positive phenomenon; but if their intention in going abroad is merely to take advantage of more generous benefits then this will not benefit Poland in the long term. These people not only create a loss to the Polish economy and to the economy of the country of destination, but also harm the reputation of other hard-working Poles abroad. In this situation, I believe that it is both in the interest of the Polish authorities and the British government to reduce the amount of further departures from Poland of so-called Polish "benefit tourists", and to restrain their temptation to make use of those British benefits when in this country. Of course, because of the cardinal EU principle about the free movement of EU workers from one country to another without discrimination against their rights and access to local services, I propose another solution that could begin as a bilateral practice between the British and Polish authorities and which could in turn, be enhanced and undertaken by other EU countries, bilaterally first, and later on multilaterally. So, it is proposed that any application for Polish benefits by UK citizens and for British benefits by Polish citizens made within 12 months of their first arrival in the country of destination, be frozen for that first 12 months of arrival until the relevant health, tax and social services of the country of origin have been able to assess and reveal the applicant’s true financial status. The relevant Polish authorities, for instance, would have to acknowledge that their citizens do not have other sources of income, e.g. social insurance payments from ZUS, and that they have paid off all financial obligations in their own country. Only after confirmation that these applicants do not have other sources of income, would the destination countries be able to grant the various benefits to which the applicant could be entitled, including the payment due for the period when this payment was frozen. Any trip by an applicant away from the destination country, even for a short period of time, will negate the waiting time to that date and the applicant would have to begin his or her quarantine period again on their next arrival at that country. Ministries of the two countries would undertake in the spirit of mutual transparency to provide sufficient data during this probationary year in order to carry out their assessments within the required 12 month period. This will also cover child benefits paid to children not resident in the country where the benefit is issued if the applicant has arrived at the country of destination less than 12 months before the claim is made. On the one hand, it will discourage trips that were only dependent on obtaining benefits in the other EU country, but also it will discourage people in the destination country from making premature applications for financial assistance to which they were not yet entitled through earlier tax and national insurance contributions. In addition, it will be an effective tool against tax and benefit fraud in both countries. However, no such measures could be regarded as discrimination against EU citizens because, in the end, those benefits to which the applicant has been entitled will be made available and be back dated after the quarantine period is over. The second difficulty broached by the British government is the question of Polish citizens who, despite their access to work legally in the UK, still continue to work illegally without registering for national insurance and without paying taxes. Where this applies to illegal employment of citizens not originating in the EU, the authorities can impose heavy fines on the employer and deport the illegal worker. I would suggest, however, in the case where the UK authorities catch EU citizens working in the informal economy they could deport these people back to their own country. The Polish authorities and other EU countries would have the same right in the case of British nationals working illegally in Poland or another EU country. Of course deportees could return relatively quickly to the country where they were employed but that deportation, even if temporary, would nonetheless be costly and create a certain amount of dislocation in the private and professional life of the offender in question. Due to the fact that this work in the grey economy is outside the law, and under British law would actually be a crime, it too cannot be classified as a form of sanction that discriminates against EU citizens. It seems to me that such initiatives by the Polish government would be a viewed positively not only by the British Government, but also by the British public, and make it easier for the UK Prime Minister to argue that he had been able to obtain positive results in his negotiations in the European capitals, particularly in Warsaw. It would also put the remaining hard working Polish citizens working legally in the UK in a more positive light. In fact these administrative measures could be a model or pilot scheme that could be adopted by other EU countries and would still not be regarded as a form of discrimination against EU citizens, Wiktor Moszczyński London 16/10/2015

Could Poland help out Cameron?

As Prime Minister David Cameron has sown, so must he reap. Over the last five years, instead of facing down the right wing of his party and the populist slogans of UKIP, he took the path of least resistance. He acted with hostility towards the European Union constantly threatening to withdraw from the Union and highlighting at every step the most negative aspects of the Union. He drilled away at the wound of EU migration, at the excesses of bureaucracy and restrictive legislation and alleged fraud in social benefits by EU citizens. He boasted that he was the first British prime minister who vetoed a decision of the European Council of Ministers though it was just an empty gesture that upset potential allies who sympathized with some of his proposed reforms. Earlier still, he cut off the Tories in the European Parliament from the dominant Christian Democratic grouping and led them into a marginal Euro-sceptic grouping alongside Polish members of PiS (Law and Justice Party) and other more extreme right-wing European parties. Because of this Conservatives have lost daily contact with the real Christian Democratic initiators of European policy, headed by Chancellor Merkel. Cameron strutted around and puffed himself up proudly as a British patriot defending the interests of his own country in a zero sum game against the rapacious demands of EU bureaucracy and the needy countries of Eastern Europe. He did not dwell on any of the benefits emanating from membership of the Union, almost never named the effectiveness of the single market or the environmental protection of the rights of workers and women. We now know that this attitude was just a front in order to maintain the support of a large part of the electorate that felt intimidated by the UKIP induced spectre of an endless tidal wave of immigrants. Instead of confounding and condemning the barren isolationist tide Cameron and his party tried to head it off by showing their "tough" image in what proved to be a panicky swelling up of anti-European feeling in the country. Miliband, the Labour leader, bravely clung to the principle that the United Kingdom should remain in the Union and therefore a referendum on membership would be undesirable. Miliband, loyal to his principles, lost; Cameron, a cunning gambler, surprisingly won the elections. He has proved the more effective politician, but he is not a statesman. Now Cameron wants to change everything and seek to reaffirm the UK’s membership of the Union. But in order to regain public confidence after such a U turn and to get a positive result in the referendum he needs to play a deception on the electorate. He must demonstrate that the whole previous quadrille on the European Union dance floor was just an attempt to persuade the European Union to make the relevant concessions to spice up the bid to retain membership. A broad litany of fundamental concessions announced earlier in the Conservative election manifesto included the right of national parliaments to block EU legislation that they disapprove of, the need to reduce the amount of trade regulations and to stop social benefits for newly arrived EU citizens in the first four years as well as cutting child benefit to EU children living abroad. He would have liked to regulate all EU citizens’ access to the labour market but was aware these would be vetoed by all other EU member states. While he had hoped that some of the other demands, such as the re-interpretation of the phrase “ever closer union” in the EU constitution, or a reduction in EU directives on commercial transactions, could meet with much sympathy from other member states, it was pointed out that none of them had had the appetite for any fundamental treaty changes. They had no wish to then hold the required referenda to approve those changes and certainly not within the 2 year timetable set them by Cameron. Despite undoubted cosmetic concessions that he may receive from his neighbours he was now realizing that his main demands for stopping benefits and national parliamentary vetoes were completely unattainable. Now that he has won the general election Cameron must "negotiate" something sufficiently substantial with his European partners to persuade the British electorate that it can finally vote in a referendum for remaining within a "reformed" Union. So he needs to draw in other countries to concoct a somewhat hypocritical illusion that he has won something substantial in this game. It is a matter not so much of reality, but the perception of that reality. In politics, perception itself is often enough. Cameron hopes that in this game a large part of British society itself will be ready to accept this version. Cameron does have the heavy artillery of big business and foreign investors, especially Asian and American, on his side and politically he will be able to count on the support of the main opposition parties, namely Labour, SNP, Liberal-Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. Ranged against him will be around 100 recalcitrant Tory MPs, about 3 million voters who had voted unsuccessfully in May for UKIP and the anti-EU newspapers "Daily Telegraph", "Daily Mail" and "Daily Express". Furthermore, at the head of the "No" block he could well face the most popular politician in the UK, the current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. Public opinion is currently volatile and the outcome is uncertain. Much will become clear by next year when the charade called “negotiations with European partners” will come to a close and Cameron will have to present to the electorate a paltry outcome of concessions he had obtained in the other European capitals. After being subjected to a twelve month barrage of daily propaganda from alarmed captains of industry on the one hand and the shrill call of the Europhobes on the other, will the electorate want to join in the game of smoking mirrors with the Prime Minister and pretend that something has been achieved? This hostile part of the electorate will know, however, that the emperor has no clothes and it will ensure that every one is made aware of this. After that it will be a matter of “Europe - take it or leave it". But Cameron's unclad appearance will not only be decried by isolationists, as it is being already by UKIP and by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson. Cameron has been warned about his naked stance by the Polish Europe Minister, Rafal Trzaszkowski, one of the younger talents of the current, somewhat wobbly, ruling elite. He called upon the British people to be realistic about many of the things they could lose by leaving Europe and about what their prime minister will be able or not be able to negotiate successfully despite the greatest good will on the part of Poland and other EU countries. Trzaszkowski’s comments appeared in the British media, most notably in Sunday's "Observer" which devoted its first page to him. Besides, we know that the current Polish government, in the face of upcoming parliamentary elections in October, and following a disastrous defeat of its candidate in the recent presidential candidate and its current messy cabinet reshuffle, will not risk any concessions to Cameron that could threaten the rights of Poles abroad. In the field of migration Poland will not buckle, and Poland is not alone in its stubbornness. In matters appertaining to the principle of free migration Cameron may as well give Warsaw a miss at least for the time being. And if the more nationalist opposition, PiS, were to win the election Cameron should stay away for longer. But there is another side to the coin. First, Poland would be devastated if Britain left the EU. For indeed London is a counterweight to Germany and the consolidated core countries in the Eurozone. The remaining countries still outside the Eurozone, like Poland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary or Romania, will not be able to cope with the agenda of closer integration of the countries sharing a common currency. Here Britain's contribution to the Union's internal decision-making outside the straitjacket of the single currency is crucial. Secondly, the United Kingdom supports Polish targets for a coordinated energy policy and the maintenance of sanctions against Russia. Thirdly, Polish expats in the UK contribute over one billion pounds per year to the Polish economy, although that income is slowly declining. Poland can only lose if Britain were to leave the EU. As UK’s staying with the EU is such a vital strategic interest for Poland, should not the Polish governments, now and after the election, be keeping in reserve a more flexible approach to Cameron’s requests to helping him win over a volatile British electorate? Poland is right to insist on respecting the fundamental EU principle of free movement of workers within the EU labour markets and their right to benefits under the same conditions as those countries’ indigenous citizens. However the most provocative aspect for British voters of these EU freedoms is the opportunity for EU arrivals to enjoy the fruits of the British welfare state immediately upon arrival without having worked one day and without having paid any taxes. In fact, this kind of benefit tourism is not as widely practiced as many claim but this again is a matter of perception. Many of the hard-working Poles living in the UK and diligently paying their taxes here also consider this unfair. Complaints about the possibility of benefit tourism remains one of most festering wounds in the current political crisis within the EU and specifically in Polish-British relations. Increasingly also many Poles are becoming concerned at the drain of young Poles from their own country as they fear a considerable demographic crisis as the Polish working population begins to shrink and they too would be loath to see this exodus fuelled by lax social benefit rules in countries like the UK. This was a matter of particular concern to the new Polish president-Elect Andrzej Duda. Consequently a certain respite in the number of Poles travelling to the UK could already be in the mutual interest of both the UK and Poland. So what could the new Polish government, formed after the elections in October, offer Prime Minister Cameron as a last resort to meet the whims of the British electorate? Something which would also be consistent with the interests of Poland? I think the best gift would be an agreement by both countries to give full access to the records of every citizen applying for new benefits in another country – whether a Brit in Poland or a Pole in the UK. Then there would be no possibility of illegal dual access to services and any new applicant, for example for housing benefit, would have to be checked with the income of that person in the country of origin. Of course, such research could take up to a few months during which any new benefit would be temporarily frozen. This would give the erstwhile applicant the appropriate incentive to finding legal employment in the country he or she is visiting. Such a system could also be extended to other EU countries, and I think that Germany in particular might welcome such a project. No EU principle of the right to work or to equal benefits is being flouted, there would be no requirement for a treaty change or any new referendum in other countries but it could satisfy one of the major concerns of the British electorate over abuse of benefits and could help the pro-EU lobby to win the referendum. It would also remove the current veil of suspicion and tension which currently clouds attitudes to Polish and other EU citizens working and setting up families in the UK. Wiktor Moszczyński Appear in in www.polishlondoner.blogspot.co.uk and published in the London “Polish Daily” on June 12 2015.