Philippe Legrain

What proportion of women with children (of school age) in Britain are in paid
work? Is it: a) half; b) one quarter; c) three quarters; or d) two
thirds?

Stumped? Try this one. How many children are estimated to be working
in the United Kingdom? Is it: a) 8 million; b) 5 million; c) 1 million;
or d) 2 million?

I challenge Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith or Liam Byrne
to answer correctly (without prior briefing) either question – or the
many others on which prospective British citizens are tested.
Journalists who attend the prime minister’s televised monthly press
conference should spring questions from the "Life in the UK test" on
him. No doubt, the self-styled definer of all things British could not
pass his own Britishness test. I’d be astonished if many people whose
ancestry here stretches back to 1066 – or even to Cheddar Man – could
answer such questions correctly. And why on earth should a British
citizen be required to know?

The Britishness test is part of a much broader package that the government, in its mad rush to appease the moral panic about immigration stirred up by the likes of the Daily Mail, is implementing
to define and defend Britishness from the onslaught of dastardly
foreigners who actually want – how dare they! – to contribute to this
country and feel that they belong.

While the government’s decision to allow the Poles and other new EU
citizens to come work here freely was brave and right – and is an
important reason why Gordon Brown can boast to have overseen Britain’s
longest-ever economic boom – it has since produced one idiotic,
knee-jerk, xenophobic immigration-policy initiative after another. Take
the proposed
ID cards for foreigners. They are not just discriminatory, but absurd:
if someone claims to be British, and therefore does not (yet) require
ID, how on earth is a relevant official meant to determine whether they
need to show some?

Then, there is the government’s pride and joy: the new skills-based points system,
which is being phased in from the end of this month. This involves
officials from the department deemed "not fit for purpose" by Jacqui
Smith’s predecessor trying to divine how foreigners will contribute to
Britain in future and slams the door on low-skilled migrants from
developing countries: the equivalent of a new 11-plus exam for vetting
immigrants. There goes Britain’s chance of admitting the father of a
future Barack Obama. Surely a Labour government that purports to
believe in opportunity for all should realise that you can’t – and
shouldn’t – determine people’s life chances based on their background.

And now we have "earned citizenship" – another misguided aptitude test. That the proposals were leaked
to the Neanderthal Daily Telegraph tells you everything you need to
know about the government’s intentions. Since only a green paper has
been published, the details of the proposals will doubtless change
considerably. But the government’s thinking is clear.

"Citizenship is not an abstract concept, or just access to a
passport. I believe it is – and must be seen as – founded on shared
values that define the character of our country," Gordon Brown said today.
"I stand for a British way of life where we, the people, are protected
from crime, but in return we obey the law, and where we, the people,
expect and receive services, but in return pay our fair share in taxes
and have the obligation and gain the skills for work where we can."

Now that may superficially seem fine – even banal; after all, who
favours a way of life where people are not protected from crime, don’t
obey the law, don’t work, don’t pay their fair share of taxes and don’t
receive public services in return? But think again: what exactly are
the "shared values" that, Brown claims, distinguish British people from
others? This is not an abstract debate: the government seeks to
prescribe these values. "In the future, the aspiring citizen should
know and subscribe to a clear statement of British values," Brown said.

But if immigrants are to conform to British values, should they
model themselves on Jade Goody or Trevor MacDonald, Melanie Phillips or
Boy George, Margaret Thatcher or George Monbiot? Britain is inescapably
– and wonderfully – diverse, not just thanks to recent immigration, but
because human beings are all different, and because people are freer to
express their differences since the liberating 1960s. This is something
to celebrate, not stifle. Moreover, irrespective of immigration, in our
globalising world of foreign holidays, Facebook and fusion food, the
bonds of nationality are inexorably loosening. Is that so terrible?

Increasingly, we all have multiple, overlapping and increasing
self-defined identities: a British citizen may also identify as a
European, a Christian, of Irish origin, a Londoner, a student, a
trainee doctor, a woman, a mother, a wife, a supporter of gay rights,
an environmentalist and, above all, an individual. And if society is
broad enough to include nuns and transsexuals, Marxists and
libertarians, radical environmentalists and oil executives, surely it
can embrace immigrants, too? After all, we don’t all need to be alike
in order to live together. We just need to respect the basic principles
on which our societies are based, such as freedom within the law,
equality before the law and tolerance of differences.

Contrary to what Brown might think, these are not "British values":
they are liberal ones. They are shared by many non-Britons, and
rejected by some Britons, Islamist bigots, for instance, as well as the
BNP. And while people cannot be forced to believe in them, they can be
required to respect the law: even those who believe that women are not
equal to men must treat them as such.

Now, if integration means anything – and often, when ministers use
the word, they appear to have no clear idea what they mean by it – it
is a two-way street. If people are expected to fit in, they have to be
treated equally and made to feel welcome. Liam Byrne’s stated mantra
is: "Treat everyone the same: just make sure no one’s dodging their
dues." But treat migrants the same is precisely what the new
earned-citizenship proposals do not do.

Byrne recently said
that newcomers should "speak the language, obey the law and pay their
taxes like the rest of us". Certainly, it makes sense for immigrants to
learn English, but why the need to require it? It is astonishing that
the birthplace of the world’s language of choice should display such
linguistic insecurity. And the implication that migrants – whatever
their citizenship status – don’t tend to obey the law or pay their
taxes is pure malice.

Ministers speak as if aspiring British citizens are potential
benefit-cheats and criminals, rather then overwhelmingly decent,
hard-working and law-abiding people who already make – and want to
continue to make – a big contribution to British society. That is
xenophobic prejudice – and hardly conducive to fostering the sense of
Britishness that the government claims to aspire to.

This article also appears on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site here.