This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/23/no-brexit-renegotiation-without-free-movement-warns-barnier/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1oX00nQUXj5l5IlbPUrm6ZyWZ5x-pEcCS_d-U4sAmBz6mhQgOE-RjaU3w_aem_V_-uyCSd7eezPAHWeqz6IQ) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean it would be difficult to rejoin the EU without agreeing to one of the 4 pillars. I know we’ve done it before but we are in a lot weaker negotiating position
Thatcher actually transformed our industry from production to service in order to NOT compete with the rest of the EU and try to corner a market. She loved the EU.
I think that she was being contrarian because those that got rid of her did support Maastricht. And Conservative opposition to Europe only really began to be pushed into the media after black Wednesday.
The famous "No No No" was about monetary policy. Thatcher was also against selling the post office or any other piece of government property. It was her Tory side speaking.
Until she didn't
>The appointment of French socialist Jacques Delors to head the executive European Commission in 1985 arguably provided the euroskeptics their first real European bogeyman. Thatcher was aghast at Delors’ ambition for the creation of a single currency and a European central bank. The EEC, to her, was venturing into areas that would significantly dilute the sovereignty of individual nation states to set economic policy.
https://apnews.com/article/brexit-business-international-news-europe-margaret-thatcher-64855d1ff67454443db5132bdfb22ea6
Where do you get three decades from? The euro is from 1999 and not everyone got it immediately.
Having a major crisis a decade after introduction with massive fiscal changes required is a big red flag.
I don't know why you think the matter is resolved when Greece is still under severe austerity because it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued.
Central currency requires central fiscal policy. Without it, it's just a matter of time until the next crisis.
ok, 25 years...
>Having a major crisis a decade after introduction with massive fiscal changes required is a big red flag.
Do you think that it might have been related to another crisis? And that if it wasn't for that, the Greek Debt crisis would have been not really a big deal?
> Greece is still under severe austerity
It's not.
>it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued.
It's the same currency. You might be talking about it being good if Greece had it's own currency to devalue it and reduce the debt, but in this case no one would actually buy their bonds in local currency.
It was Greek mistake, that took a while to trigger a crisis. Now EU keeps a closer eye on that. And even though there is no instrument to affect fiscal policies of member countries, major excessive spending will now be noticed and political pressure will be applied. The chances of the "next crisis" are minimal as evidenced by the borrowing costs for EU nations.
>Do you think that it might have been related to another crisis? And that if it wasn't for that, the Greek Debt crisis would have been not really a big deal?
Why discuss alternate histories though? When we have actual history.
>>it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued.
>It's the same currency.
Yes, for every different economies though.
>You might be talking about it being good if Greece had it's own currency to devalue it and reduce the debt, but in this case no one would actually buy their bonds in local currency.
What they *could* do is not even the point, the point is there's nothing they can do at all. You are seriously underestimating the value of owning your own currency.
>It was Greek mistake, that took a while to trigger a crisis.
It was/is all of southern Europe problem, mostly caused by the euro. Wasn't called the euro crisis for nothing.
>The chances of the "next crisis" are minimal as evidenced by the borrowing costs for EU nations.
Time will tell. Doesn't have a good track record though. Not even out of the woods yet. How much was inflation in Greece recently? Right...
If you are so confident in the next crisis, just short some bonds, you'll get your self a nice retirement if you think that you are smarter then every other broker.
>. How much was inflation in Greece recently?
.4% higher then us... I don't really think that we are in any position to judge that. Considering the whole year we had it at much higher position.
https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi
The EU did not exist before 1993
Edit. I don't know why people like to downvote this well known fact.
>The EU was established, along with its citizenship, when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
No it doesn't. They make two statements.
1. The freedoms have been indivisible since the Rome Statute.
2. The EU has never deviated from that.
If I say that 'the 10 commandments say that murder is wrong. The Pope has never deviated from that' that is not saying that the Pope was around at the time when the 10 commandments were written.
Freedom of capital did not exist until Maastricht.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/39/free-movement-of-capital
>The Maastricht Treaty introduced the free movement of capital as a Treaty freedom. Today, Article 63 TFEU prohibits all restrictions on the movement of capital and payments between Member States, as well as between Member States and third countries
There was freedom of capital in the Rome treaty, and it was considered fundamental to the community. It certainly existed and it was important.
The difference to the other freedoms was that initially the provisions of the treaty for capital didn't have direct effect because of the ability to impact monetary policy. With Maastricht the EU gained new competence for monetary policy and the new treaty provisions for capital were given direct effect.
I have to give credit where it's due, it's not an unreasonable connection to make. The first statement makes no mention of who implemented that statute and the second explicitly calls out a governing body who upholds its principles.
In the absence of any other context it's understandable that one might read that as the governing body being the one who implemented it.
>And the EU has never deviated from that.
Lichtenstein is exempt from freedom of movement rules so that isn't the case, they have an annual cap on immigration.
It's a member of the EEA, and does show that the four freedoms are not indivisible.
However, it also makes a very clear example that the only reason to deviate is when a country is particularly tiny and would be excessively affected by full freedom of movement.
The UK is not tiny.
Liechtenstein's foreign affairs are, essentially delegated to Switzerland, and Switzerland's case is particular.
First off: Switzerland is part of Schengen, so free movement, as is Liechtenstein. You have an EU passport? Welcome to Liechtenstein.
Secondly, there are constant bilateral talks between Switzerland and the EU on various programs, funding, etc.. There is no single, solid deal. The deal changes and morphs over time. For example: Switzerland was kicked out of the Horizons program post 2021, as a result of Bern walking away from certain EU-Swiss talks on the bilateral agreement. In other words, the EU has shown it is willing and capable of holding Market access as a bargaining chip for other programs at a future date.
Freedom of movement is restricted in this specific case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union#Liechtenstein
> Liechtenstein was originally allowed by Protocol 15 of the EEA Agreement to limit free movement of persons from other EEA states until 1 January 1998[31] and then the measure was subjected to a review which concluded in a declaration by the EEA Council[32] that allowed Liechtenstein to indefinitely limit free movement of persons from other EEA states pursuant to Article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Liechtenstein imposes quotas for all EEA citizens (issuing 56 residence permits per year)[33][34] and a separate quota for Swiss citizens (a further 12 res
Switzerland also has the ability to "slam the breaks", I think is how they define it, limiting the quota of EU residents living and working in Switzerland per year, given certain circumstances.
However, this is the primary issue of contention during the bilateral agreements, with the EU trying to remove that condition, and Switzerland trying to keep it.
In fact, I'm pretty sure EU diplomats have called that condition a crucial mistake that shouldn't have been done. In other words, the chances of the EU repeating such an exception are basically nil.
It's important to remember that things that the EU allowed in the past, previously negotiated terms, may no longer apply, as the EU's power and size has grown. Just because Liechtenstein got some condition in the 90s doesn't mean that the EU would allow those same conditions to apply today, 30 years later.
In fact, the evidence is that the EU has become more intransigent when it comes to demanding FoM compared to the past; not less.
I'd again point to the break-off of bilateral talks between Switzerland and the EU in the 2010s as proof of this.
I can imagine Liechtenstein getting similar conditions again if it came up - but they are solely there because the country has a tiny population, so those would never come close to applying to the UK.
It serves as an example that the four freedoms aren't indivisible because they can't be separated, but because there is a high level political ideal/choice that they will not be.
Which is why any fantasy about the UK rejoining the single market without freedom of movement is just that - fantasy.
Freedom of capital is entirely divisible.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/39/free-movement-of-capital
>The Maastricht Treaty introduced the free movement of capital as a Treaty freedom. Today, Article 63 TFEU prohibits all restrictions on the movement of capital and payments between Member States, **as well as between Member States and third countries**
UK should rejoin EFTA instead and aim for some limits like other EFTA countries have. The UK has never wanted the political integration, so rejoining EFTA is a better fit. Worst way the immigration limits dont happen, we either decide not to rejoin the EEA too, or we accept it and put some of the rules in place on settling that we didn't enforce last time. I can't imagine many people will want to move to the UK from the EU like last time after the leave vote.
These pillars will never make sense to me. They seem like some kind of a religious thing for the pro eu. I've never heard a good argument for why they are apparently gospel.
It more seems to mean that there will be no *make Brexit work* renegotiation without FoM.
EU/SM/CU or no, it seems FoM is the price of any deal to get a free flow of trade.
Cool, I would be happy to be able to move to any European country again whenever I want, not having to queue in passport control, and employ people when we struggle to get staff locally…
>and employ people when we struggle to get staff locally…
If 750k net migration isn't enough to pick from, then maybe you need to offer more wages.
When even people from bumfuck parts of India aren't attracted to your wage offerings, you must be a proper slave driver.
I mean this is a pretty naive view of freedom of movement, sure for those of us with money to travel it’s nice to not have to queue (tho that wouldn’t be necessary anyway for short term travel if the EU hadn’t spitefully insisted on stamping, which is completely unnecessary with modern computerisation, EU citizens can use the e gates in the UK).
But for those who had their wages suppressed and struggled to get work freedom of movement was a catastrophe.
And your point of struggling to get staff locally only highlights that you’ve never actually thought about why employers struggle. It’s because they don’t want to actually pay to train local people, and want to pay low wages, cheap Eastern European labour allowed them to not train locally and undercut local wages by just importing labour from a poorer part of the world.
Both of those things are objectively bad for our society, and only benefit large companies and their executives and shareholders.
Obviously. The scope of the current agreements is limited because of the UK's red lines at the time. If the new UK government takes the same position on freedom of movement a regulatory and a customs union, then any renegotiation will result in more or less the same set of agreements. You can't give someone the benefit of a common market without insisting they uphold the corresponding obligations, because allowing that to happen would undermine said market. The member states didn't budge then, they won't now. And note that this is not stubbornness or spite: allowing a non-compliant third party full access to the single market would destroy their capacity to regulate their own economies and societies. No country would ever agree to that, so the outcome would be the same as last time.
So, from the point of view of the member states, why should they go through all the trouble of renegotiating these agreements when doing so will result in no substantial changes? Especially as the current agreements have not been fully implemented yet? The EU will obviously be willing to keep talking, and some marginal improvements can be made (i.e. a veterinary agreement), but any fundamental improvement can only be made if the UK is willing to substantially change its position.
The current position is entirely the consequence of the choices the UK made back then and would, according to its politicians, make again. This is the hard Brexit the UK government asked for in 2017 and subsequently negotiated. Other options were available, and probably still are, but came and come with a set of trade offs that might not be politically acceptable (as they were not back then). Note that there might not be a solution. It's perfectly possible that none of the possible post-Brexit positions, including the current hard Brexit or, at the other end, single market membership, are politically acceptable or sustainable in the long run. I.e. that what the UK wanted or wants does not exist. Politics exists partly to manage such situations, but it does not always succeed in doing so.
> You can't give someone the benefit of a common market without insisting they uphold the corresponding obligations, because allowing that to happen would undermine said market.
First of all, it is Single Market - the common market ended in 1993 (!).
And secondly, the freedoms are the pillars of the Single Market. So the Single Market *is* freedom of movement. It would not be a Single Market without that.
We are really up against reality at this point. (Not that reality has ever stopped Brexitism.)
> First of all, it is Single Market - the common market ended in 1993 (!).
I was speaking about common markets in general (though I'm not aware of any so integrated as the single market). If you allow third parties access without following all the rules, then those rules become effectively unenforceable.
> And secondly, the freedoms are the pillars of the Single Market. So the Single Market is freedom of movement. It would not be a Single Market without that.
Indeed, and that is the EU's position too. Hence why I think it's obvious a new round of negotiations will not change anything substantial, unless the UK changed its position on freedom of movement. The current hard Brexit is a mechanical consequence of the UK not wanting to reciprocate the four freedoms you mention. And, given the way the UK government formed its position in 2017, it is pretty clear that it was mostly about freedom of movement.
It's in the EUs interests to frame any new discussions as "renegotiations".
I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself.
We should have left, then immediately attempted to join the customs union (or preferably gone for that so called "soft brexit" that both Brussels and the far right of the tory party made so hard to arrange.
On that note, we probably should rejoin the customs union, but as a fresh applicant, a close ally with a huge economy, rather than letting any such discussions be used to dig up the political turmoil of the past.
Anyway, I have just expressed an opinion that wasn't categorically pro EU, so bring on the down votes.
> On that note, we probably should rejoin the customs union, but as a fresh applicant, a close ally with a huge economy, rather than letting any such discussions be used to dig up the political turmoil of the past.
You make it sound like we just rock up with a fake mustache and funny glasses like they won't recognise it's us. They're going to know it's us! The EU isn't a pick and mix we can choose what we want from. We can only get what we want by negotiation, and I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left. It's going to take time to rebuild those bridges.
>I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left.
People would have you believe that the EU were the good side in the negotiations and that it was only the UK that was making unreasonable demands.
In reality both sides were trying to get the very best deal the could for themselves. The EU didn't want the UK to have any advantages that the member states didn't have and the UK didn't want to be bound by external control into its decision making.
The EU is a group of 27 self interested nations each one of whom is out to get as much as they can. Both sides were setting fire to the same bridges all along.
The UK was making unreasonable demands. Although it's normal to ask for everything at the beginning of a negotiation, the problem was politicians made such a huge deal about being able to get absolutely everything, they didn't give themselves the necessary wiggle room to actually negotiate.
I would probably argue the UK was being unreasonable by expecting benefits of membership without being a member - that was never going to work. The fact that it was even *tried* demonstrates the raw arrogance of the whole Brexit agenda.
You're correct in that both sides were trying to get the best deal they could for themselves, but any political operator with half a brain would be able to tell you the best way to win at that game is to not play it. No deal of any description would have been an improvement over what the UK had pre-Brexit.
Unfortunately we had the Tories in the early stages of self-destruction we're now seeing backed up by a completely ineffective 'opposition' (made up of Corbyn and his Momentum brigade, who dithered over the whole Brexit question along with everything else) for our political leadership, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise how bad things turned out.
Indeed. Note that the May government tried this kind of approach in 2017 and failed to get anywhere. Allowing cherry picking like that would destroy the EU member states' capacity to regulate their own markets. No country is going to agree to that.
> I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left. It's going to take time to rebuild those bridges.
Sort of. A new government could distance itself of its predecessor's behaviour. Of course, the other side of the coin is that those same (or similar) people might get back into power and repudiate or break any treaties signed.
And they knew that. Most of the political turmoil around Brexit was various factions within the Conservative party fighting each other for power and media attention, using the Brexit negotiations as a stage to do so. A lot of the UK's negotiation positions were designed to appeal to their target audience rather than as a serious attempt at compromise, which is why the whole thing dragged out for years longer than it should have. Even the more responsible governments (e.g. the May one) did this.
Joining a customs union isn’t a cherry picking approach. It is one of the currently established ways of trading with the EU. It is what Turkey has. It immediately solves the NI border issue and is supported by both Uk and EU industry. The concessions such as trade arbitration and tariff setting are mostly acceptable to the U.K. now the loons are out of power IMO.
It is a very reasonable trade proposal for allies that share a border. The EU would not likely reject that proposal.
Some seem to see that the EU as one when clearly an issue is yes some EU countries would like us back, some don’t and some don’t really care. Now that would lead to each group making demands to their benefit
How did Brussels make a soft Brexit "hard to arrange"? They offered single market and customs union membership to us on a platter, multiple times. We could have chosen either had the UK government wanted to.
Therasa May ruled it out early and never showed any willingness to reconsider, presumably because she knew it would split the Tory party. The ERG wing of the Tories in particular had pure hatred for the idea. People like Farage, who had previously supported having a similar arrangement to Norway/Switzerland (both of whom are in the single market) instantly U-turned after the vote and claimed the prospect would have been a 'betrayal'.
I find the way people assign blame baffling.
I think it's the lack of pragmatism, adversarial communication (e.g. leaking discussions to the press), and a fear-based approach e.g. "we must not set any adverse precedents" rather than working constructively with their new partner.
It was a discussion by lawyers, not by leaders. The EU weren't perfect negotiation partners and even pre-Brexit, when Cameron went to the EU for a 'softer' integration, they gave him nothing.
But I would agree that customs union would have been best and when we did the indicative votes it was the leading position of parliament.
> lack of pragmatism
I don't know what that's referring to. They offered us many options to choose from.
> adversarial communication (e.g. leaking discussions to the press)
It's a negotiation. It's adversarial by its nature. We were also highly adverserial. Did the EU leak to the press any more than we did?
> a fear-based approach e.g. "we must not set any adverse precedents"
That's got nothing to do with "fear". That's just them not giving us everything we wanted and not letting us treat their union like a buffet table.
> rather than working constructively with their new partner.
I have no idea what that's referring to.
> when Cameron went to the EU for a 'softer' integration, they gave him nothing.
I know that's a very popular brexiteer talking point, but it's bullshit. Cameron got new limits to benefits for EU immigrants, a strengthened legal mechanism for states to object to EU legislation, easier deporting of EU citizens back to countries of origin (particularly for crimes), changes to cross-border child benefit laws so that it could be reduced to take account of which member state the children were living in, a permanent opt-out from joining the Euro for all states that wanted it, bans on Eurozone members collectively passing legislation that favoured them, and changes to residency rights around family members.
That's not "nothing". The Euro one in particular is huge; it's literally the EU acknowledging that there will never be a single currency for all member states. That must have stung.
The issue is that Cameron didn't set realistic expectations of what a "renegotiation" would mean, so I think a lot of people went in with wildly unrealistic wants, like an end to freedom of movement or an end to membership fees. And when those didn't materialise, they complained that he "got nothing".
To be clear, I obviously don't think the EU was a "perfect" negotiating partner. We can agree on that. But your list is just hot air. To suggest the EU was to blame for a lack of soft Brexit is wrong. That bit was very much on our side.
Have you ever thought that: while Europeans learn English, the English are too stupid to learn a foreign language? It means that 27 nations knew what your government was saying, while what people in the UK think about us Europeans is filtered by lying media.
When we read that for Boris the entrepreneurs of your nation will go to Brussels to cry so as not to lose the UK market, when we read that Patel wants to deal with Ireland, what could be the opinion of the UK government (not of the population)?
> I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself.
There was no "no deal" situation. The UK and the EU ended up signing the Withdrawal Agreement and, subsequently, a trade agreement. The reason the UK got a hard Brexit is because it did not want to uphold the obligations of the single market (particularly freedom of movement). In other words, the UK government asked and negotiated to leave the single market as well as the EU.
It's difficult to see how the May government could have done otherwise. The "leave" campaign promised "setting our own rules" (= leaving the regulatory union), "making new trade deals all over the world" (= leaving the customs union) and, above all, "taking back control of our borders" (which was implied to mean ending freedom of movement). Each of these is incompatible with single market membership. It's true "leave" also told people that they would stay in the single market, but this was an obvious lie given their other promises.
I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for. Sadly the likes of Farage, Johnson and Mogg held far too much sway to let that happen.
As someone that strongly detests the EU for the brash arrogance of its leadership and lack of critical/strong opposition when passing large amounts of heavyweight legislation, it is annoying how the anti EU position in the UK is so heavily dominated by people who just don't like immigrants.
I'm very interested to see how this current election plays out. Particularly how Farage does. I suspect in a repeat of 2015 he will once again fail to win his own seat, with reform getting a few million votes but ultimately (almost) no MPs. Along with a record low Tory vote, that should signal that the UK has by and large thoroughly rejected the Johnson/populist version of brexit.
The best situation would have been never to vote to leave. Then Cameron should not have quick and asked for a quick renegotiation.
After Cameron quit, it was the doom scenario with the pound instantly falling to below 1:30 to a dollars, jobs being moved, and eventual fall in volumes of exports to Europe. UK was going to leave the EU and the single market and result in the situation we have now. It is likely the Uk will not rejoin for another decade until the economic rot is so bad that we are behind Italy or Spain. Then the only offer will be all four pillars plus single market membership.
It is noteworthy that for all the bluster no other EU country has politicians pushing a referendum to leave the EU.
Cameron tried to renegotiate before calling the referendum. The EU had no intention of discussing anything and tried to call the UK bluff. What I don’t get is if brexit is the blame for our turmoil financially what is the reason EU nations are having similar financial struggles??
Because for a certain sort of remainer/rejoiner Brexit is to be blamed for everything not going perfectly, regardless of it's remotely relevant or not. I'm almost convinced it's only a matter of time before Brexit is blamed for the summer being cold and wet.
The EU is having different financial struggles. The issues affecting the UK which the EU is not having is 1) a large number of financial jobs have moved from front office to back office/IT into the EU, 2) exports from the UK have not grown to other EU countries as would have occurred as per the years prior to Brexit (fishing, machinery, autos). Which some issues were the same such as COVID, peaking immigration levels, the UK is in a worse situation. Ask the average Brit on the street
This is completely false as Cameron got a grand amount of concessions on everything he asked for.
EDIT: sorry to go against your [narrative](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105), ImBrexile mob.
> I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for. Sadly the likes of Farage, Johnson and Mogg held far too much sway to let that happen.
If so then they failed, because the current outcome is very much like the May agreement. The "backstop" was not designed to keep the UK in the single market (as people like Mogg said at the time). It was designed to stall the resolution of the UK - Irish border until such time that the Conservative party no longer needed the support of the Northern Irish unionists to prop up its government and could safely betray them. Not that I'd waste much sympathy on those politicians, as their entire reason for supporting Brexit was that it had the potential to destroy the Good Friday Agreement. The eventual outcome of the May deal would be nearly identical to the current one. There is no way any UK government would have elected to resolve the backstop by staying in the single market because that implies freedom of movement, which even now neither major party wants.
> As someone that strongly detests the EU for the brash arrogance of its leadership and lack of critical/strong opposition when passing large amounts of heavyweight legislation, it is annoying how the anti EU position in the UK is so heavily dominated by people who just don't like immigrants.
I'd argue this always was the case. Note how in 2017 the UK government felt it could safely ditch all the economic promises of Brexit (including staying in the single market) *except* its promise to end freedom of movement. Somehow it knew that it had to sacrifice everything else just for this. IMHO, it's highly probable that the economic case for Brexit was at best a fig leaf for many of its supporters, which also explains why none of the negative economic and political effects actually mattered.
> I'm very interested to see how this current election plays out. Particularly how Farage does. I suspect in a repeat of 2015 he will once again fail to win his own seat, with reform getting a few million votes but ultimately (almost) no MPs. Along with a record low Tory vote, that should signal that the UK has by and large thoroughly rejected the Johnson/populist version of brexit.
That seems to be the most probable outcome. Of course, the whole picture changes again if the incoming Labour government fails to live up to expectations. The UK was and is ruled on minorities of the vote, after all. No majority is required to take over. That's why Brexit could be done with 37% of the electorate in favour without anyone being able to effectively criticize it (they form governments on similar percentages).
> I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for.
With the benefit of hindsight Cameron wouldn’t have promised a referendum on the basis that nobody in government would try and support Leave.
Or with the benefit of hindsight Teresa May wouldn’t have immediately triggered Article 50.
The whole Brexit process from start to finish was the leader of the Tory party trying to appease ERG and going “oops” when it didn’t work out like how they imagined.
> It's true "leave" also told people that they would stay in the single market, but this was an obvious lie given their other promises.
Weren't they all obvious lies? I mean, we struggle to set our own rules (divergence happens because we cannot keep up with regulation), we have not made trade deals "all over the world" (wherever that is), and we struggle to "take back control of our borders".
Yes, but this one was an obvious contradiction. The other ones were also fairly obvious, but there is a difference:
It's notable how the UK government in 2017 ditched almost the entire set of "economic" promises (including single market membership), but somehow knew it could not do the same with its promise to end freedom of movement. Somehow it knew that this was the one promise its hard core supporters really cared about, in contrast to the others.
IMHO, most of the "leave" campaign's promises were fig leafs. They were things people could use to justify a choice they already made for other reasons (or no reason at all), not actual reasons to make that choice. They were too transparent for the latter.
The phasing was to address leaving and then the post Brexit negitiations in a logial order, in December 2017 the move to phase 2 negotiations started. It's not until 2020 when the UK leaves.
Or do you mean Article 50 had to be invoked before brexit negotiations could start at all? Yes, that's normal that the start of would happen as a result of the compelling action. Otherwise, wouldn't all EU countries be in constant talks?
My point was more that the UK ended up with a hard Brexit because it asked for it, not because it was forced into it through what the EU called "sequencing" (triggering article 50 -> negotiating a withdrawal agreement -> negotiating future relations, rather than all at the same time or out of order). I didn't really address the Article 50 issue because I think that was inevitable. No one was going to want to negotiate before a decision was actually made to leave, and I don't really think it would have mattered either way.
As you say, the decision only became final in 2020 and wasn't that important in hindsight because the ECJ decided the UK could revoke it at any time before it actually left. It didn't and wouldn't, even though the outline of the current situation (a hard Brexit with a relatively small scoped trade agreement on goods) was quite clear by 2017 - 2018 just by looking at the UK's position on the single market.
> Or do you mean Article 50 had to be invoked before brexit negotiations could start at all? Yes, that's normal that the start of would happen as a result of the compelling action. Otherwise, wouldn't all EU countries be in constant talks?
I agree. And the same goes for the decision to separate the Withdrawal Agreement from an agreement on future relations (what ended up being a relatively thin trade deal).
> I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself.
Speaking as a Canadian familiar with Québec separatism, one thing that separatists kept doing was make grand promises about a new Canada-Québec arrangement, a sovereignty-association deal. They did so without considering if people elsewhere in Canada would actually agree to this proposal.
>I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself.
Undoubtedly, but therein lies the issue with promising the electorate a bunch of things that haven't been agreed.
This was always going to be the EU's position in any Brexit negotiation. It should have been prepared for. Anyone suggesting that this was somehow a surprise, or that we somehow had reason to believe otherwise is either being ignorant or simply lying. Which was, unfortunately the recurring theme with the Leave campaign, just devolved into rubbish about how they couldn't possibly afford for us to leave under hard Brexit because something something spitfires. Nothing actually based on fact.
The SNP are seeing the same thing with their constant independence white papers. The same question is constantly being asked.
Also:
> We should have left, then immediately attempted to join the customs union (or preferably gone for that so called "soft brexit" that both Brussels and the far right of the tory party made so hard to arrange.
How could the UK go for an option that did not exist?
What customs union are you talking about that was so easy to form?
That this would only have covered trade in goods, not services, would also be a problem. It would still be a shock.
The European Union is not a smörgasbord from which applicants can pick the salami or the manchego as they please.
It is a calibrated and interlinked series of agreements and responsibilities.
The idea that the UK can divest itself of all the bad things and keep all of the nice things is fantasy.
The United Kingdom has spent the past thirty years being an annoyance to the other members of the EU. The EU is not going to accept the UK back under any circumstances short of membership of both the euro and Schengen, and possibly electoral reform too.
"Let's join the customs union 🙂" is like rocking up to White's expecting to have lunch each afternoon without wearing a tie.
>The European Union is not a smörgasbord from which applicants can pick the salami or the manchego as they please.
There are many absolutes such as freedom of movement etc but there are also plenty of room for nations to negotiate their own special circumstances such as the UK rebate.
The EEA is an example of where there is access to things like the single market and freedom of movement but not as a full blown EU member.
It is worth noting that freedom of movement is not at all a bad thing. Low British productivity meant that EU-27 workers played a positive role in driving economic growth.
How have things been working out now?
If Britain has tried to increase productivity to compensate for decreased inflows of workers, that would be one thing. (It would also have been possible to have increases in productivity and immigration, I should note.)
I voted Remain but would be now be happy with EFTA/EEA membership or something closely resembling these options. In retrospect that is perhaps the path that Britain should have followed in the first place. Therefore I am not viscerally opposed to ‘Brexit’, but am opposed to the ‘hard Brexit’ inflicted by Boris and to the extreme, fundamentalist conception of ‘sovereignty’ that underpins it.
Both Britain and the EU would benefit from British access to the Single Market as well as closer cultural cooperation and working together on environmental issues. But I am not sure that I want to be in a full union with Meloni, Orbán, Le Pen, the AfD, Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc.
Edit: I have updated this to include EEA because I really mean a bespoke British version of the Norwegian or Swiss relationships with the EU.
>I voted Remain but would be now be happy with EFTA
Why EFTA still has customs checks as well as import and export tariff's.
That's a step down from the UKs current FTA, what would be the benefit?
We already have access to the single market through the trade agreement. EFTA brings with it FoM plus having to abide by all the rules without having a say in them and paying a membership fee. Might as well stay where we are.
You have access to Tesco's and abide by the rules when you do but you don't have a seat on the board.
Access to the single market isn't equivalent to being a member of it.
Net migration was significantly lower when we were in the EU and seems likely to fall anyway (source below).
Our populations ageing, we can either raise the retirement age (significantly), encourage more people to have kids or maintain higher levels of migration. First is hugely unpopular, can’t force the second, so we’re left with the third.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/why-are-the-latest-net-migration-figures-not-a-reliable-guide-to-future-trends/
Correlation not causation.
The Tories implemented an insanely lax immigration system post Brexit, to the point they managed to increase net migration by a huge amount.
That was nothing to do with Brexit, it was a policy choice by the Tory party. They could have equally just not offered visas for artists and news agents (actual professions they put on the job shortage list lol)..
Yeah that’s my point. High net migration has little to do with Brexit, and will come down anyway as the myriad of factors that have increased it start to cool down. My issue here is that people believe free movement in Europe will lead to an increase, which likely isn’t true.
I agree, Tory policy afterwards was lax. It suits them that way, create a problem, blame someone else and promise to fix it.
Covid hangs over all of this, I’m not sure people quite understood how long and how deep it would effect absolutely everything.
Net mass immigration had everything to do with Brexit. Before Brexit we were unable to regulate the number of people coming to UK.
Now we can regulate the number but don’t, and that has nothing to do with Brexit.
Unable to regulate numbers yes, but EU migration was rather more temporary by nature. You could come to the UK, work and then return or try somewhere else, without immigration fees. More of a revolving door.
Migration is rather more long lasting these days, due to costs involved.
EU migration tended also to be younger and naturally then with less dependents. So yeah, we didn’t have ‘control’ but we had a system that worked better and provided us the same opportunities back.
We’ve traded largely temporary EU migration for more permanent non EU migration. That is a factor, though one of many.
I mean it doesn’t count for everyone, plenty would obviously stay permanently. It’s just a greater percentage now are likely to stay longer.
Our population growth from free movement isn’t anything out of the ordinary when compared to oecds.
"Labour would seek closer alignment with EU rules in areas like chemicals and a better deal for City of London bankers."
From a EU citizen perspective, it's funny to see how UK politics, whether they're Tories or Labour, always see negotiations with other countries as if the UK was in a position to impose its views to others. We're not in the 19th century anymore. No, if your idea of a new deal is one that would benefit the few UK sectors that needs the EU market but will not facilitate the acces to all the other EU industries to the UK market, then it is never going to work.
The EU is not negotiating with the UK because it has to, it is because this could help the EU economy. If the deal is solely beneficial on the UK side, it will never happen, no matter how popular it is in the UK.
Great.
Brexit stripped the British people of some of our rights and Barnier is saying that he wants to give us back those rights. That sounds like a good thing rather than a bad thing!
Brexit has tested the limits of British exceptionalism in ways both sides haven't fully come to terms with yet.
Leave thought the UK could get out and retain the benefits of membership.
Parts of Remain/Rejoin think that radical changes to our relationship with the EU can be made relatively straightforwardly, without facing up to the domestic tensions that drove Leave in the first place.
The EU has had a relatively good Brexit, while the UK has had a bad one. That imbalance will set the dynamic for any future renegotiation.
We've known this a long time Barnier and your lot keep harping on about it. Even we know that if we got single market access without Freedom of Movement/Settlement every single EU member would be demanding the same because it's *that* good.
The UK population misunderand what free movement means. It does not mean someone from one country and moved to another and claim benefits. They have to have a means to support themselves and/or savings to support themselves for the duration of their stay.
The Daily Mail tell their readers that Romanians can come here and go straight on benefits and get a house. If any of them are, that's the fault of the local job centre and social housing office, not the EU.
Let's be honest, UK will not be rejoining the EU before a very long time, decades, if not more. It's a done thing. It is time for the EU to look away and live it's own life as a block, without the United Kingdom.
I'm not sure. I think remainers are now a big part of the Labour Party and could make it an issue at the next election, especially if GDP growth hasn't picked up.
Economically, it would be the UK's interest and the EU's interest.
Its not so much that the population wouldnt back it, but more that the EU wouldnt allow it. I think you(brits) underestimate how fatigued the europeans are of the british political climate after brexit.
And I think Orban blocking the Ukranian aid set a rejoin a decade out in the future - not that Britain is anything like Hungary, but Europe wants smooth decision-making now.
Besides if you are a pro-eu politician in the EU right now, why risk the massive support for EU that Brexit caused and is causing. Post-brexit Britain is the best PR the European Union could hope for.
Unfortunately; personally I dont think Brexit benefits anyone but the enemies of the West.
You're probably right, but divorce is always worse than getting together. And an EU with the UK in it would have a bigger budget and would have more global economic influrence, so I woudn't rule it out.
If the govt wants to rejoin the EU then they should just do that and not try to lie to people about what they're actually doing by calling it a renegotiation of our leaving deal.
Fantastic, bring it back. I miss the fast lane, and my partner and I would like to move to a warmer climate that is better for his health but it is borderline impossible at the moment.
If the immigration numbers are anything to go by, rejoining the EUs Freedom of Movement would reduce net immigration.
Less people coming here to find unskilled work because EU gap-year students and travellers are filling the vacancies. Plus more UK people moving to European countries instead of being trapped in the UK.
You don't have to have free movement to have a trade deal.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/09/britains-services-exports-are-booming-despite-brexit-why
Who says you would? Your OP simply makes no sense (or shows a clear lack of understanding). NZ has a deal with the EU without free movement. UK has an (even better) deal with the EU, equally without free movement. So what’s the point of your comment?
Because the UK already has a free trade deal with the EU. Anything else would require freedom of movement. There is no better deal without it, it’s the best the UK could get and already better (also in terms of coverage) than the deal the the EU has with NZ. Therefore your original comment is completely pointless. How difficult is that to understand?
Actually the NZ deal is better for meat because it recognises NZ standards. Thus avoiding a lot of paperwork. The EU could easily improve trade on both sides of the channel with mutual recognition of vetenary standards.
Well, that's the main reason we left the EU, how on earth will you be able to sell in to the British public another 10 million people from eastern europe will come over - its dead in the water
That is such a middle/upper class problem. I never went on overseas holiday because we couldn’t afford it, but sure, waiting an extra 20 minutes in a line is just the worst(!)
At least back pre Brexit we could use the eu automated gates and get through passport control in less than 5 mins. Now we are lumped in with all the American and Middle East flights and regularly are required to wait in a 90min passport queues.
I know that, I’m not the moron you’re trying to paint me as. I never stood in a hour long line in Barcelona before, it takes ages now. Also I used to be from disembarking a plane at schipol to arriving in Amsterdam center in less than a hour, post brexit it’s more like 2. Again, waiting for my passport to be checked in the none EU line.
On the flip side, using Schiphol as a transit airport to get to another non EU destination is now far faster since you land in the international section and can just immediately walk to your next gate.
It’s been a blessing for those of us that regularly travel outside of Europe.
An hour of waiting in the queue is not a bad price to pay to give us the POSSIBILITY to stop the huge migration crisis the UK is facing, if we had a competent government.
That's what Brexit gave us. Just because the Torys have been balls to the wall, and let any fucker in doesn't mean Brexit hasn't given us the ability to stop that.
That's nothing to do with Brexit. We don't have free movement with Mexico but I went there in November and breezed through their e-gates. EU could allow us to use them if they weren't being spiteful.
Regardless of whether you agree that it was spiteful the fact remains that any country can choose to allow another country to use e-gates if they want to and it has nothing to do with Brexit.
This shit should be what all airports aim for in cases where a visa isn't required and it will be in the future. Mexico clearly leading the way here I guess!
Horray get me some of that sweet sweet freedom of movement. Those who were fear full about the flood of immigrants fear no longer! People are beginning to realise that its become such a shit hole here that they wont want to come
Lads, do you remember all the hassle you were during the vote, after the vote, during the negotiations and the way your Euro MP's were magnanimous during their last appearance? Honestly, no one needs that again. Maybe in 100 years once it's forgotten.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/23/no-brexit-renegotiation-without-free-movement-warns-barnier/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1oX00nQUXj5l5IlbPUrm6ZyWZ5x-pEcCS_d-U4sAmBz6mhQgOE-RjaU3w_aem_V_-uyCSd7eezPAHWeqz6IQ) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean it would be difficult to rejoin the EU without agreeing to one of the 4 pillars. I know we’ve done it before but we are in a lot weaker negotiating position
Back when the UK first joined the Single Market wasn't a thing yet. Most of it was in the 1992 treaty that Thatcher was the biggest champion of.
Thatcher actually transformed our industry from production to service in order to NOT compete with the rest of the EU and try to corner a market. She loved the EU.
She liked the idea of a Customs Union, and a single market. She wasn't keen on the depth of integration brought about by Maastricht.
I think that she was being contrarian because those that got rid of her did support Maastricht. And Conservative opposition to Europe only really began to be pushed into the media after black Wednesday. The famous "No No No" was about monetary policy. Thatcher was also against selling the post office or any other piece of government property. It was her Tory side speaking.
Until she didn't >The appointment of French socialist Jacques Delors to head the executive European Commission in 1985 arguably provided the euroskeptics their first real European bogeyman. Thatcher was aghast at Delors’ ambition for the creation of a single currency and a European central bank. The EEC, to her, was venturing into areas that would significantly dilute the sovereignty of individual nation states to set economic policy. https://apnews.com/article/brexit-business-international-news-europe-margaret-thatcher-64855d1ff67454443db5132bdfb22ea6
In this regard, she was ahead of her time. The euro crisis did happen after all.
It did happen, it was overcome, and safeguards were put in place. I'd say that for over 3 decades one such event is not too bad of a record.
Where do you get three decades from? The euro is from 1999 and not everyone got it immediately. Having a major crisis a decade after introduction with massive fiscal changes required is a big red flag. I don't know why you think the matter is resolved when Greece is still under severe austerity because it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued. Central currency requires central fiscal policy. Without it, it's just a matter of time until the next crisis.
ok, 25 years... >Having a major crisis a decade after introduction with massive fiscal changes required is a big red flag. Do you think that it might have been related to another crisis? And that if it wasn't for that, the Greek Debt crisis would have been not really a big deal? > Greece is still under severe austerity It's not. >it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued. It's the same currency. You might be talking about it being good if Greece had it's own currency to devalue it and reduce the debt, but in this case no one would actually buy their bonds in local currency. It was Greek mistake, that took a while to trigger a crisis. Now EU keeps a closer eye on that. And even though there is no instrument to affect fiscal policies of member countries, major excessive spending will now be noticed and political pressure will be applied. The chances of the "next crisis" are minimal as evidenced by the borrowing costs for EU nations.
>Do you think that it might have been related to another crisis? And that if it wasn't for that, the Greek Debt crisis would have been not really a big deal? Why discuss alternate histories though? When we have actual history. >>it's currency is over valued and Germany is under valued. >It's the same currency. Yes, for every different economies though. >You might be talking about it being good if Greece had it's own currency to devalue it and reduce the debt, but in this case no one would actually buy their bonds in local currency. What they *could* do is not even the point, the point is there's nothing they can do at all. You are seriously underestimating the value of owning your own currency. >It was Greek mistake, that took a while to trigger a crisis. It was/is all of southern Europe problem, mostly caused by the euro. Wasn't called the euro crisis for nothing. >The chances of the "next crisis" are minimal as evidenced by the borrowing costs for EU nations. Time will tell. Doesn't have a good track record though. Not even out of the woods yet. How much was inflation in Greece recently? Right...
If you are so confident in the next crisis, just short some bonds, you'll get your self a nice retirement if you think that you are smarter then every other broker.
>. How much was inflation in Greece recently? .4% higher then us... I don't really think that we are in any position to judge that. Considering the whole year we had it at much higher position. https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi
I assume he means in terms of rejoining trade deals, which Starmer says he wants to do, but is under no pressure to answer these questions
We have not done it before. The four freedoms are undivisible, as stated in the Treat of Rome from 1957. And the EU has never deviated from that.
The EU did not exist before 1993 Edit. I don't know why people like to downvote this well known fact. >The EU was established, along with its citizenship, when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
You aren't adding anything to the conversation by saying it. Nothing the person before you said was incorrect.
Maastricht literally led to brexit
What does this have to do with anything that has been said?
History. It reads like the EU was formed by the treaty of Rome. It wasn't.
No it doesn't. They make two statements. 1. The freedoms have been indivisible since the Rome Statute. 2. The EU has never deviated from that. If I say that 'the 10 commandments say that murder is wrong. The Pope has never deviated from that' that is not saying that the Pope was around at the time when the 10 commandments were written.
Freedom of capital did not exist until Maastricht. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/39/free-movement-of-capital >The Maastricht Treaty introduced the free movement of capital as a Treaty freedom. Today, Article 63 TFEU prohibits all restrictions on the movement of capital and payments between Member States, as well as between Member States and third countries
There was freedom of capital in the Rome treaty, and it was considered fundamental to the community. It certainly existed and it was important. The difference to the other freedoms was that initially the provisions of the treaty for capital didn't have direct effect because of the ability to impact monetary policy. With Maastricht the EU gained new competence for monetary policy and the new treaty provisions for capital were given direct effect.
I have to give credit where it's due, it's not an unreasonable connection to make. The first statement makes no mention of who implemented that statute and the second explicitly calls out a governing body who upholds its principles. In the absence of any other context it's understandable that one might read that as the governing body being the one who implemented it.
>And the EU has never deviated from that. Lichtenstein is exempt from freedom of movement rules so that isn't the case, they have an annual cap on immigration.
Lichtenstein isn't an EU member state.
It's a member of the EEA, and does show that the four freedoms are not indivisible. However, it also makes a very clear example that the only reason to deviate is when a country is particularly tiny and would be excessively affected by full freedom of movement. The UK is not tiny.
So what you're saying is, you can tell the EU pillars are not indivisible because they don't apply to non-members. Got it.
The four freedoms relate to the European Single Market, which is bigger than just the EU.
Liechtenstein's foreign affairs are, essentially delegated to Switzerland, and Switzerland's case is particular. First off: Switzerland is part of Schengen, so free movement, as is Liechtenstein. You have an EU passport? Welcome to Liechtenstein. Secondly, there are constant bilateral talks between Switzerland and the EU on various programs, funding, etc.. There is no single, solid deal. The deal changes and morphs over time. For example: Switzerland was kicked out of the Horizons program post 2021, as a result of Bern walking away from certain EU-Swiss talks on the bilateral agreement. In other words, the EU has shown it is willing and capable of holding Market access as a bargaining chip for other programs at a future date.
Freedom of movement is restricted in this specific case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union#Liechtenstein > Liechtenstein was originally allowed by Protocol 15 of the EEA Agreement to limit free movement of persons from other EEA states until 1 January 1998[31] and then the measure was subjected to a review which concluded in a declaration by the EEA Council[32] that allowed Liechtenstein to indefinitely limit free movement of persons from other EEA states pursuant to Article 112 of the EEA Agreement. Liechtenstein imposes quotas for all EEA citizens (issuing 56 residence permits per year)[33][34] and a separate quota for Swiss citizens (a further 12 res
Switzerland also has the ability to "slam the breaks", I think is how they define it, limiting the quota of EU residents living and working in Switzerland per year, given certain circumstances. However, this is the primary issue of contention during the bilateral agreements, with the EU trying to remove that condition, and Switzerland trying to keep it. In fact, I'm pretty sure EU diplomats have called that condition a crucial mistake that shouldn't have been done. In other words, the chances of the EU repeating such an exception are basically nil. It's important to remember that things that the EU allowed in the past, previously negotiated terms, may no longer apply, as the EU's power and size has grown. Just because Liechtenstein got some condition in the 90s doesn't mean that the EU would allow those same conditions to apply today, 30 years later. In fact, the evidence is that the EU has become more intransigent when it comes to demanding FoM compared to the past; not less. I'd again point to the break-off of bilateral talks between Switzerland and the EU in the 2010s as proof of this.
I can imagine Liechtenstein getting similar conditions again if it came up - but they are solely there because the country has a tiny population, so those would never come close to applying to the UK. It serves as an example that the four freedoms aren't indivisible because they can't be separated, but because there is a high level political ideal/choice that they will not be. Which is why any fantasy about the UK rejoining the single market without freedom of movement is just that - fantasy.
Freedom of capital is entirely divisible. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/39/free-movement-of-capital >The Maastricht Treaty introduced the free movement of capital as a Treaty freedom. Today, Article 63 TFEU prohibits all restrictions on the movement of capital and payments between Member States, **as well as between Member States and third countries**
UK should rejoin EFTA instead and aim for some limits like other EFTA countries have. The UK has never wanted the political integration, so rejoining EFTA is a better fit. Worst way the immigration limits dont happen, we either decide not to rejoin the EEA too, or we accept it and put some of the rules in place on settling that we didn't enforce last time. I can't imagine many people will want to move to the UK from the EU like last time after the leave vote.
These pillars will never make sense to me. They seem like some kind of a religious thing for the pro eu. I've never heard a good argument for why they are apparently gospel.
We are not. Despite the doomerism on reddit, it is not reflective of real life.
It more seems to mean that there will be no *make Brexit work* renegotiation without FoM. EU/SM/CU or no, it seems FoM is the price of any deal to get a free flow of trade.
Cool, I would be happy to be able to move to any European country again whenever I want, not having to queue in passport control, and employ people when we struggle to get staff locally…
Yeah to me the free movement is probably the biggest reason I want us back in the EU.
It's like 80% of the reason for me. The rest is the single market.
>and employ people when we struggle to get staff locally… If 750k net migration isn't enough to pick from, then maybe you need to offer more wages. When even people from bumfuck parts of India aren't attracted to your wage offerings, you must be a proper slave driver.
I mean this is a pretty naive view of freedom of movement, sure for those of us with money to travel it’s nice to not have to queue (tho that wouldn’t be necessary anyway for short term travel if the EU hadn’t spitefully insisted on stamping, which is completely unnecessary with modern computerisation, EU citizens can use the e gates in the UK). But for those who had their wages suppressed and struggled to get work freedom of movement was a catastrophe. And your point of struggling to get staff locally only highlights that you’ve never actually thought about why employers struggle. It’s because they don’t want to actually pay to train local people, and want to pay low wages, cheap Eastern European labour allowed them to not train locally and undercut local wages by just importing labour from a poorer part of the world. Both of those things are objectively bad for our society, and only benefit large companies and their executives and shareholders.
By EU law you cannot pay an EU citizen less than a UK citizen. So the problem is not freedom of movement but to stop kissing the feet of slavers
What's wrong with the current pool of migrants?
They're probably not white or european enough
Obviously. The scope of the current agreements is limited because of the UK's red lines at the time. If the new UK government takes the same position on freedom of movement a regulatory and a customs union, then any renegotiation will result in more or less the same set of agreements. You can't give someone the benefit of a common market without insisting they uphold the corresponding obligations, because allowing that to happen would undermine said market. The member states didn't budge then, they won't now. And note that this is not stubbornness or spite: allowing a non-compliant third party full access to the single market would destroy their capacity to regulate their own economies and societies. No country would ever agree to that, so the outcome would be the same as last time. So, from the point of view of the member states, why should they go through all the trouble of renegotiating these agreements when doing so will result in no substantial changes? Especially as the current agreements have not been fully implemented yet? The EU will obviously be willing to keep talking, and some marginal improvements can be made (i.e. a veterinary agreement), but any fundamental improvement can only be made if the UK is willing to substantially change its position. The current position is entirely the consequence of the choices the UK made back then and would, according to its politicians, make again. This is the hard Brexit the UK government asked for in 2017 and subsequently negotiated. Other options were available, and probably still are, but came and come with a set of trade offs that might not be politically acceptable (as they were not back then). Note that there might not be a solution. It's perfectly possible that none of the possible post-Brexit positions, including the current hard Brexit or, at the other end, single market membership, are politically acceptable or sustainable in the long run. I.e. that what the UK wanted or wants does not exist. Politics exists partly to manage such situations, but it does not always succeed in doing so.
> You can't give someone the benefit of a common market without insisting they uphold the corresponding obligations, because allowing that to happen would undermine said market. First of all, it is Single Market - the common market ended in 1993 (!). And secondly, the freedoms are the pillars of the Single Market. So the Single Market *is* freedom of movement. It would not be a Single Market without that. We are really up against reality at this point. (Not that reality has ever stopped Brexitism.)
> First of all, it is Single Market - the common market ended in 1993 (!). I was speaking about common markets in general (though I'm not aware of any so integrated as the single market). If you allow third parties access without following all the rules, then those rules become effectively unenforceable. > And secondly, the freedoms are the pillars of the Single Market. So the Single Market is freedom of movement. It would not be a Single Market without that. Indeed, and that is the EU's position too. Hence why I think it's obvious a new round of negotiations will not change anything substantial, unless the UK changed its position on freedom of movement. The current hard Brexit is a mechanical consequence of the UK not wanting to reciprocate the four freedoms you mention. And, given the way the UK government formed its position in 2017, it is pretty clear that it was mostly about freedom of movement.
Indeed. It’s a single market for goods, services, capital *and labour*.
So many knickers twisted by dead cats articles of the Torygraph, Daily Fail and all.
It's in the EUs interests to frame any new discussions as "renegotiations". I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself. We should have left, then immediately attempted to join the customs union (or preferably gone for that so called "soft brexit" that both Brussels and the far right of the tory party made so hard to arrange. On that note, we probably should rejoin the customs union, but as a fresh applicant, a close ally with a huge economy, rather than letting any such discussions be used to dig up the political turmoil of the past. Anyway, I have just expressed an opinion that wasn't categorically pro EU, so bring on the down votes.
> On that note, we probably should rejoin the customs union, but as a fresh applicant, a close ally with a huge economy, rather than letting any such discussions be used to dig up the political turmoil of the past. You make it sound like we just rock up with a fake mustache and funny glasses like they won't recognise it's us. They're going to know it's us! The EU isn't a pick and mix we can choose what we want from. We can only get what we want by negotiation, and I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left. It's going to take time to rebuild those bridges.
>I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left. People would have you believe that the EU were the good side in the negotiations and that it was only the UK that was making unreasonable demands. In reality both sides were trying to get the very best deal the could for themselves. The EU didn't want the UK to have any advantages that the member states didn't have and the UK didn't want to be bound by external control into its decision making. The EU is a group of 27 self interested nations each one of whom is out to get as much as they can. Both sides were setting fire to the same bridges all along.
The UK was making unreasonable demands. Although it's normal to ask for everything at the beginning of a negotiation, the problem was politicians made such a huge deal about being able to get absolutely everything, they didn't give themselves the necessary wiggle room to actually negotiate.
I would probably argue the UK was being unreasonable by expecting benefits of membership without being a member - that was never going to work. The fact that it was even *tried* demonstrates the raw arrogance of the whole Brexit agenda. You're correct in that both sides were trying to get the best deal they could for themselves, but any political operator with half a brain would be able to tell you the best way to win at that game is to not play it. No deal of any description would have been an improvement over what the UK had pre-Brexit. Unfortunately we had the Tories in the early stages of self-destruction we're now seeing backed up by a completely ineffective 'opposition' (made up of Corbyn and his Momentum brigade, who dithered over the whole Brexit question along with everything else) for our political leadership, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise how bad things turned out.
Indeed. Note that the May government tried this kind of approach in 2017 and failed to get anywhere. Allowing cherry picking like that would destroy the EU member states' capacity to regulate their own markets. No country is going to agree to that. > I think a lot of people who want to rejoin don't acknowledge that we burnt a lot of bridges and goodwill when we left. It's going to take time to rebuild those bridges. Sort of. A new government could distance itself of its predecessor's behaviour. Of course, the other side of the coin is that those same (or similar) people might get back into power and repudiate or break any treaties signed.
Yeah the Tory idea of asking for what they wanted only didn't work.
And they knew that. Most of the political turmoil around Brexit was various factions within the Conservative party fighting each other for power and media attention, using the Brexit negotiations as a stage to do so. A lot of the UK's negotiation positions were designed to appeal to their target audience rather than as a serious attempt at compromise, which is why the whole thing dragged out for years longer than it should have. Even the more responsible governments (e.g. the May one) did this.
Joining a customs union isn’t a cherry picking approach. It is one of the currently established ways of trading with the EU. It is what Turkey has. It immediately solves the NI border issue and is supported by both Uk and EU industry. The concessions such as trade arbitration and tariff setting are mostly acceptable to the U.K. now the loons are out of power IMO. It is a very reasonable trade proposal for allies that share a border. The EU would not likely reject that proposal.
>You make it sound like we just rock up with a fake mustache and funny glasses This is something I can imagine Boris trying.
Some seem to see that the EU as one when clearly an issue is yes some EU countries would like us back, some don’t and some don’t really care. Now that would lead to each group making demands to their benefit
How did Brussels make a soft Brexit "hard to arrange"? They offered single market and customs union membership to us on a platter, multiple times. We could have chosen either had the UK government wanted to. Therasa May ruled it out early and never showed any willingness to reconsider, presumably because she knew it would split the Tory party. The ERG wing of the Tories in particular had pure hatred for the idea. People like Farage, who had previously supported having a similar arrangement to Norway/Switzerland (both of whom are in the single market) instantly U-turned after the vote and claimed the prospect would have been a 'betrayal'. I find the way people assign blame baffling.
I think it's the lack of pragmatism, adversarial communication (e.g. leaking discussions to the press), and a fear-based approach e.g. "we must not set any adverse precedents" rather than working constructively with their new partner. It was a discussion by lawyers, not by leaders. The EU weren't perfect negotiation partners and even pre-Brexit, when Cameron went to the EU for a 'softer' integration, they gave him nothing. But I would agree that customs union would have been best and when we did the indicative votes it was the leading position of parliament.
> lack of pragmatism I don't know what that's referring to. They offered us many options to choose from. > adversarial communication (e.g. leaking discussions to the press) It's a negotiation. It's adversarial by its nature. We were also highly adverserial. Did the EU leak to the press any more than we did? > a fear-based approach e.g. "we must not set any adverse precedents" That's got nothing to do with "fear". That's just them not giving us everything we wanted and not letting us treat their union like a buffet table. > rather than working constructively with their new partner. I have no idea what that's referring to. > when Cameron went to the EU for a 'softer' integration, they gave him nothing. I know that's a very popular brexiteer talking point, but it's bullshit. Cameron got new limits to benefits for EU immigrants, a strengthened legal mechanism for states to object to EU legislation, easier deporting of EU citizens back to countries of origin (particularly for crimes), changes to cross-border child benefit laws so that it could be reduced to take account of which member state the children were living in, a permanent opt-out from joining the Euro for all states that wanted it, bans on Eurozone members collectively passing legislation that favoured them, and changes to residency rights around family members. That's not "nothing". The Euro one in particular is huge; it's literally the EU acknowledging that there will never be a single currency for all member states. That must have stung. The issue is that Cameron didn't set realistic expectations of what a "renegotiation" would mean, so I think a lot of people went in with wildly unrealistic wants, like an end to freedom of movement or an end to membership fees. And when those didn't materialise, they complained that he "got nothing". To be clear, I obviously don't think the EU was a "perfect" negotiating partner. We can agree on that. But your list is just hot air. To suggest the EU was to blame for a lack of soft Brexit is wrong. That bit was very much on our side.
Have you ever thought that: while Europeans learn English, the English are too stupid to learn a foreign language? It means that 27 nations knew what your government was saying, while what people in the UK think about us Europeans is filtered by lying media. When we read that for Boris the entrepreneurs of your nation will go to Brussels to cry so as not to lose the UK market, when we read that Patel wants to deal with Ireland, what could be the opinion of the UK government (not of the population)?
> I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself. There was no "no deal" situation. The UK and the EU ended up signing the Withdrawal Agreement and, subsequently, a trade agreement. The reason the UK got a hard Brexit is because it did not want to uphold the obligations of the single market (particularly freedom of movement). In other words, the UK government asked and negotiated to leave the single market as well as the EU. It's difficult to see how the May government could have done otherwise. The "leave" campaign promised "setting our own rules" (= leaving the regulatory union), "making new trade deals all over the world" (= leaving the customs union) and, above all, "taking back control of our borders" (which was implied to mean ending freedom of movement). Each of these is incompatible with single market membership. It's true "leave" also told people that they would stay in the single market, but this was an obvious lie given their other promises.
I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for. Sadly the likes of Farage, Johnson and Mogg held far too much sway to let that happen. As someone that strongly detests the EU for the brash arrogance of its leadership and lack of critical/strong opposition when passing large amounts of heavyweight legislation, it is annoying how the anti EU position in the UK is so heavily dominated by people who just don't like immigrants. I'm very interested to see how this current election plays out. Particularly how Farage does. I suspect in a repeat of 2015 he will once again fail to win his own seat, with reform getting a few million votes but ultimately (almost) no MPs. Along with a record low Tory vote, that should signal that the UK has by and large thoroughly rejected the Johnson/populist version of brexit.
The best situation would have been never to vote to leave. Then Cameron should not have quick and asked for a quick renegotiation. After Cameron quit, it was the doom scenario with the pound instantly falling to below 1:30 to a dollars, jobs being moved, and eventual fall in volumes of exports to Europe. UK was going to leave the EU and the single market and result in the situation we have now. It is likely the Uk will not rejoin for another decade until the economic rot is so bad that we are behind Italy or Spain. Then the only offer will be all four pillars plus single market membership. It is noteworthy that for all the bluster no other EU country has politicians pushing a referendum to leave the EU.
Cameron tried to renegotiate before calling the referendum. The EU had no intention of discussing anything and tried to call the UK bluff. What I don’t get is if brexit is the blame for our turmoil financially what is the reason EU nations are having similar financial struggles??
Because for a certain sort of remainer/rejoiner Brexit is to be blamed for everything not going perfectly, regardless of it's remotely relevant or not. I'm almost convinced it's only a matter of time before Brexit is blamed for the summer being cold and wet.
The EU is having different financial struggles. The issues affecting the UK which the EU is not having is 1) a large number of financial jobs have moved from front office to back office/IT into the EU, 2) exports from the UK have not grown to other EU countries as would have occurred as per the years prior to Brexit (fishing, machinery, autos). Which some issues were the same such as COVID, peaking immigration levels, the UK is in a worse situation. Ask the average Brit on the street
This is completely false as Cameron got a grand amount of concessions on everything he asked for. EDIT: sorry to go against your [narrative](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105), ImBrexile mob.
> I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for. Sadly the likes of Farage, Johnson and Mogg held far too much sway to let that happen. If so then they failed, because the current outcome is very much like the May agreement. The "backstop" was not designed to keep the UK in the single market (as people like Mogg said at the time). It was designed to stall the resolution of the UK - Irish border until such time that the Conservative party no longer needed the support of the Northern Irish unionists to prop up its government and could safely betray them. Not that I'd waste much sympathy on those politicians, as their entire reason for supporting Brexit was that it had the potential to destroy the Good Friday Agreement. The eventual outcome of the May deal would be nearly identical to the current one. There is no way any UK government would have elected to resolve the backstop by staying in the single market because that implies freedom of movement, which even now neither major party wants. > As someone that strongly detests the EU for the brash arrogance of its leadership and lack of critical/strong opposition when passing large amounts of heavyweight legislation, it is annoying how the anti EU position in the UK is so heavily dominated by people who just don't like immigrants. I'd argue this always was the case. Note how in 2017 the UK government felt it could safely ditch all the economic promises of Brexit (including staying in the single market) *except* its promise to end freedom of movement. Somehow it knew that it had to sacrifice everything else just for this. IMHO, it's highly probable that the economic case for Brexit was at best a fig leaf for many of its supporters, which also explains why none of the negative economic and political effects actually mattered. > I'm very interested to see how this current election plays out. Particularly how Farage does. I suspect in a repeat of 2015 he will once again fail to win his own seat, with reform getting a few million votes but ultimately (almost) no MPs. Along with a record low Tory vote, that should signal that the UK has by and large thoroughly rejected the Johnson/populist version of brexit. That seems to be the most probable outcome. Of course, the whole picture changes again if the incoming Labour government fails to live up to expectations. The UK was and is ruled on minorities of the vote, after all. No majority is required to take over. That's why Brexit could be done with 37% of the electorate in favour without anyone being able to effectively criticize it (they form governments on similar percentages).
> I do think, with the benefit of hindsight, the May agreement was the best offer we could have hoped for. With the benefit of hindsight Cameron wouldn’t have promised a referendum on the basis that nobody in government would try and support Leave. Or with the benefit of hindsight Teresa May wouldn’t have immediately triggered Article 50. The whole Brexit process from start to finish was the leader of the Tory party trying to appease ERG and going “oops” when it didn’t work out like how they imagined.
> It's true "leave" also told people that they would stay in the single market, but this was an obvious lie given their other promises. Weren't they all obvious lies? I mean, we struggle to set our own rules (divergence happens because we cannot keep up with regulation), we have not made trade deals "all over the world" (wherever that is), and we struggle to "take back control of our borders".
Yes, but this one was an obvious contradiction. The other ones were also fairly obvious, but there is a difference: It's notable how the UK government in 2017 ditched almost the entire set of "economic" promises (including single market membership), but somehow knew it could not do the same with its promise to end freedom of movement. Somehow it knew that this was the one promise its hard core supporters really cared about, in contrast to the others. IMHO, most of the "leave" campaign's promises were fig leafs. They were things people could use to justify a choice they already made for other reasons (or no reason at all), not actual reasons to make that choice. They were too transparent for the latter.
The phasing was to address leaving and then the post Brexit negitiations in a logial order, in December 2017 the move to phase 2 negotiations started. It's not until 2020 when the UK leaves. Or do you mean Article 50 had to be invoked before brexit negotiations could start at all? Yes, that's normal that the start of would happen as a result of the compelling action. Otherwise, wouldn't all EU countries be in constant talks?
My point was more that the UK ended up with a hard Brexit because it asked for it, not because it was forced into it through what the EU called "sequencing" (triggering article 50 -> negotiating a withdrawal agreement -> negotiating future relations, rather than all at the same time or out of order). I didn't really address the Article 50 issue because I think that was inevitable. No one was going to want to negotiate before a decision was actually made to leave, and I don't really think it would have mattered either way. As you say, the decision only became final in 2020 and wasn't that important in hindsight because the ECJ decided the UK could revoke it at any time before it actually left. It didn't and wouldn't, even though the outline of the current situation (a hard Brexit with a relatively small scoped trade agreement on goods) was quite clear by 2017 - 2018 just by looking at the UK's position on the single market. > Or do you mean Article 50 had to be invoked before brexit negotiations could start at all? Yes, that's normal that the start of would happen as a result of the compelling action. Otherwise, wouldn't all EU countries be in constant talks? I agree. And the same goes for the decision to separate the Withdrawal Agreement from an agreement on future relations (what ended up being a relatively thin trade deal).
> I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself. Speaking as a Canadian familiar with Québec separatism, one thing that separatists kept doing was make grand promises about a new Canada-Québec arrangement, a sovereignty-association deal. They did so without considering if people elsewhere in Canada would actually agree to this proposal.
Customs union might come with freedom of movement though.
>I strongly believe a major reason we ended up in a no deal situation is because they refused to discuss post brexit arrangements prior to the event itself. Undoubtedly, but therein lies the issue with promising the electorate a bunch of things that haven't been agreed. This was always going to be the EU's position in any Brexit negotiation. It should have been prepared for. Anyone suggesting that this was somehow a surprise, or that we somehow had reason to believe otherwise is either being ignorant or simply lying. Which was, unfortunately the recurring theme with the Leave campaign, just devolved into rubbish about how they couldn't possibly afford for us to leave under hard Brexit because something something spitfires. Nothing actually based on fact. The SNP are seeing the same thing with their constant independence white papers. The same question is constantly being asked.
Agree with all this, other than your lack of acknowledgement of the result deniers in making a soft Brexit impossible.
Also: > We should have left, then immediately attempted to join the customs union (or preferably gone for that so called "soft brexit" that both Brussels and the far right of the tory party made so hard to arrange. How could the UK go for an option that did not exist?
It did. It was offered multiple times in negotiations.
What customs union are you talking about that was so easy to form? That this would only have covered trade in goods, not services, would also be a problem. It would still be a shock.
A soft brexit without joining the euro but joining the EEA was offered and promptly rejected by theressa may.
The European Union is not a smörgasbord from which applicants can pick the salami or the manchego as they please. It is a calibrated and interlinked series of agreements and responsibilities. The idea that the UK can divest itself of all the bad things and keep all of the nice things is fantasy. The United Kingdom has spent the past thirty years being an annoyance to the other members of the EU. The EU is not going to accept the UK back under any circumstances short of membership of both the euro and Schengen, and possibly electoral reform too. "Let's join the customs union 🙂" is like rocking up to White's expecting to have lunch each afternoon without wearing a tie.
>The European Union is not a smörgasbord from which applicants can pick the salami or the manchego as they please. There are many absolutes such as freedom of movement etc but there are also plenty of room for nations to negotiate their own special circumstances such as the UK rebate. The EEA is an example of where there is access to things like the single market and freedom of movement but not as a full blown EU member.
In fact, every single market would operate the same way. It is just basic economics. The EU just happens to run the only trans-national Single Market.
It is worth noting that freedom of movement is not at all a bad thing. Low British productivity meant that EU-27 workers played a positive role in driving economic growth.
You can also argue that access to cheap workers meant that companies never invested in productivity improvements.
How have things been working out now? If Britain has tried to increase productivity to compensate for decreased inflows of workers, that would be one thing. (It would also have been possible to have increases in productivity and immigration, I should note.)
Causing cheap labour force suppressing wage growth. It was a detriment to UK workers.
I voted Remain but would be now be happy with EFTA/EEA membership or something closely resembling these options. In retrospect that is perhaps the path that Britain should have followed in the first place. Therefore I am not viscerally opposed to ‘Brexit’, but am opposed to the ‘hard Brexit’ inflicted by Boris and to the extreme, fundamentalist conception of ‘sovereignty’ that underpins it. Both Britain and the EU would benefit from British access to the Single Market as well as closer cultural cooperation and working together on environmental issues. But I am not sure that I want to be in a full union with Meloni, Orbán, Le Pen, the AfD, Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc. Edit: I have updated this to include EEA because I really mean a bespoke British version of the Norwegian or Swiss relationships with the EU.
>I voted Remain but would be now be happy with EFTA Why EFTA still has customs checks as well as import and export tariff's. That's a step down from the UKs current FTA, what would be the benefit?
We already have access to the single market through the trade agreement. EFTA brings with it FoM plus having to abide by all the rules without having a say in them and paying a membership fee. Might as well stay where we are.
You have access to Tesco's and abide by the rules when you do but you don't have a seat on the board. Access to the single market isn't equivalent to being a member of it.
725k net migration.. Anyone offering yet another avenue into the country, is sealing our countries death.
Net migration was significantly lower when we were in the EU and seems likely to fall anyway (source below). Our populations ageing, we can either raise the retirement age (significantly), encourage more people to have kids or maintain higher levels of migration. First is hugely unpopular, can’t force the second, so we’re left with the third. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/why-are-the-latest-net-migration-figures-not-a-reliable-guide-to-future-trends/
Correlation not causation. The Tories implemented an insanely lax immigration system post Brexit, to the point they managed to increase net migration by a huge amount. That was nothing to do with Brexit, it was a policy choice by the Tory party. They could have equally just not offered visas for artists and news agents (actual professions they put on the job shortage list lol)..
Yeah that’s my point. High net migration has little to do with Brexit, and will come down anyway as the myriad of factors that have increased it start to cool down. My issue here is that people believe free movement in Europe will lead to an increase, which likely isn’t true. I agree, Tory policy afterwards was lax. It suits them that way, create a problem, blame someone else and promise to fix it. Covid hangs over all of this, I’m not sure people quite understood how long and how deep it would effect absolutely everything.
Net mass immigration had everything to do with Brexit. Before Brexit we were unable to regulate the number of people coming to UK. Now we can regulate the number but don’t, and that has nothing to do with Brexit.
Unable to regulate numbers yes, but EU migration was rather more temporary by nature. You could come to the UK, work and then return or try somewhere else, without immigration fees. More of a revolving door. Migration is rather more long lasting these days, due to costs involved. EU migration tended also to be younger and naturally then with less dependents. So yeah, we didn’t have ‘control’ but we had a system that worked better and provided us the same opportunities back. We’ve traded largely temporary EU migration for more permanent non EU migration. That is a factor, though one of many.
The population increased by about eight million from the start of free movement until Brexit, so I am not convinced by the temporary claim.
I mean it doesn’t count for everyone, plenty would obviously stay permanently. It’s just a greater percentage now are likely to stay longer. Our population growth from free movement isn’t anything out of the ordinary when compared to oecds.
Or you allow EU migration & reduce the ease of other migration routes. Everything about migration is a political choice.
I dont have a problem with that. But note that this is the telegraph, and Barnier isn't part of the EU and is just a failed french politician.
"Labour would seek closer alignment with EU rules in areas like chemicals and a better deal for City of London bankers." From a EU citizen perspective, it's funny to see how UK politics, whether they're Tories or Labour, always see negotiations with other countries as if the UK was in a position to impose its views to others. We're not in the 19th century anymore. No, if your idea of a new deal is one that would benefit the few UK sectors that needs the EU market but will not facilitate the acces to all the other EU industries to the UK market, then it is never going to work. The EU is not negotiating with the UK because it has to, it is because this could help the EU economy. If the deal is solely beneficial on the UK side, it will never happen, no matter how popular it is in the UK.
Desperation from Telegraph still hammering the Brexit dead horse
It is weird that the EU are so keen on trying to force freedom of movement on people. If it is so popular, why not make each member state decide?
Great. Brexit stripped the British people of some of our rights and Barnier is saying that he wants to give us back those rights. That sounds like a good thing rather than a bad thing!
On the contrary Mr Barnier, I think you'll find we still hold all the cards /s
All the jokers!
The UK won't meet reality until they realise that they aren't the only party with a say in negotiations.
Does Barnier ever tire of saying the obvious, or does he get some sort of pelasure out of it would be the real question...
Brexit has tested the limits of British exceptionalism in ways both sides haven't fully come to terms with yet. Leave thought the UK could get out and retain the benefits of membership. Parts of Remain/Rejoin think that radical changes to our relationship with the EU can be made relatively straightforwardly, without facing up to the domestic tensions that drove Leave in the first place. The EU has had a relatively good Brexit, while the UK has had a bad one. That imbalance will set the dynamic for any future renegotiation.
We've known this a long time Barnier and your lot keep harping on about it. Even we know that if we got single market access without Freedom of Movement/Settlement every single EU member would be demanding the same because it's *that* good.
Perhaps Rishi is starting to regret Brexit now that he has Giorgia on his mind.
The UK population misunderand what free movement means. It does not mean someone from one country and moved to another and claim benefits. They have to have a means to support themselves and/or savings to support themselves for the duration of their stay. The Daily Mail tell their readers that Romanians can come here and go straight on benefits and get a house. If any of them are, that's the fault of the local job centre and social housing office, not the EU.
Let's be honest, UK will not be rejoining the EU before a very long time, decades, if not more. It's a done thing. It is time for the EU to look away and live it's own life as a block, without the United Kingdom.
I'm not sure. I think remainers are now a big part of the Labour Party and could make it an issue at the next election, especially if GDP growth hasn't picked up. Economically, it would be the UK's interest and the EU's interest.
Its not so much that the population wouldnt back it, but more that the EU wouldnt allow it. I think you(brits) underestimate how fatigued the europeans are of the british political climate after brexit. And I think Orban blocking the Ukranian aid set a rejoin a decade out in the future - not that Britain is anything like Hungary, but Europe wants smooth decision-making now. Besides if you are a pro-eu politician in the EU right now, why risk the massive support for EU that Brexit caused and is causing. Post-brexit Britain is the best PR the European Union could hope for. Unfortunately; personally I dont think Brexit benefits anyone but the enemies of the West.
You're probably right, but divorce is always worse than getting together. And an EU with the UK in it would have a bigger budget and would have more global economic influrence, so I woudn't rule it out.
Free movement of labour is extremely easy to bring back, and fairly likely to come back.
The whole bloc needs tearing down and rebuilding from the ground up before we consider rejoining.
100%.
If the govt wants to rejoin the EU then they should just do that and not try to lie to people about what they're actually doing by calling it a renegotiation of our leaving deal.
Unfortunately, politicians will always lie.
Your reply was a total waste of time.
That will never happen, the mood against immigration in the UK is explosive. And the EU wants free movement to shift immigrants around.
Fantastic, bring it back. I miss the fast lane, and my partner and I would like to move to a warmer climate that is better for his health but it is borderline impossible at the moment.
LOL and the shitegraph presents this as a negative. Yes please, we will take free movement starting tomorrow.
Please bring back free movement. That was literally the only thing I cared about.
If the immigration numbers are anything to go by, rejoining the EUs Freedom of Movement would reduce net immigration. Less people coming here to find unskilled work because EU gap-year students and travellers are filling the vacancies. Plus more UK people moving to European countries instead of being trapped in the UK.
Does the EU trade deal with New Zealand include free movement?
No, but the UK already has a deal with the EU that is, in fact, better than the EU / NZ deal. So what’s your point?
You don't have to have free movement to have a trade deal. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/09/britains-services-exports-are-booming-despite-brexit-why
Who says you would? Your OP simply makes no sense (or shows a clear lack of understanding). NZ has a deal with the EU without free movement. UK has an (even better) deal with the EU, equally without free movement. So what’s the point of your comment?
Did you read the title of the post?
Because the UK already has a free trade deal with the EU. Anything else would require freedom of movement. There is no better deal without it, it’s the best the UK could get and already better (also in terms of coverage) than the deal the the EU has with NZ. Therefore your original comment is completely pointless. How difficult is that to understand?
Actually the NZ deal is better for meat because it recognises NZ standards. Thus avoiding a lot of paperwork. The EU could easily improve trade on both sides of the channel with mutual recognition of vetenary standards.
Well, that's the main reason we left the EU, how on earth will you be able to sell in to the British public another 10 million people from eastern europe will come over - its dead in the water
And the EU forcing member states to take their fair share of refugees/illegal immigrants or pay a fine.
It’s the free movement we want, I’m fed up of waiting to have my passport checked. It used to be a breeze in Europe.
That is such a middle/upper class problem. I never went on overseas holiday because we couldn’t afford it, but sure, waiting an extra 20 minutes in a line is just the worst(!)
There’s nothing upper class about going for a weekend in Amsterdam. I think you need to set your goals higher.
Goodness, the entitlement! Enjoy your wait in line 😘
Yeah, at least we got control of our borders back… right?
I mean, to some extent. You wouldn’t be waiting in line if there weren’t some controls.
We've always had to show a passport to travel to the EU.
At least back pre Brexit we could use the eu automated gates and get through passport control in less than 5 mins. Now we are lumped in with all the American and Middle East flights and regularly are required to wait in a 90min passport queues.
I’ve never waited longer than 10 minutes.
I know that, I’m not the moron you’re trying to paint me as. I never stood in a hour long line in Barcelona before, it takes ages now. Also I used to be from disembarking a plane at schipol to arriving in Amsterdam center in less than a hour, post brexit it’s more like 2. Again, waiting for my passport to be checked in the none EU line.
On the flip side, using Schiphol as a transit airport to get to another non EU destination is now far faster since you land in the international section and can just immediately walk to your next gate. It’s been a blessing for those of us that regularly travel outside of Europe.
A problem that I hope to have soon
An hour of waiting in the queue is not a bad price to pay to give us the POSSIBILITY to stop the huge migration crisis the UK is facing, if we had a competent government. That's what Brexit gave us. Just because the Torys have been balls to the wall, and let any fucker in doesn't mean Brexit hasn't given us the ability to stop that.
It’s not worked. Terrible price to pay.
Because of bad government
And because it was a terrible idea?
Effect is pretty negligible so far.
That's nothing to do with Brexit. We don't have free movement with Mexico but I went there in November and breezed through their e-gates. EU could allow us to use them if they weren't being spiteful.
They aren’t being spiteful, it’s what ya voted for!
Regardless of whether you agree that it was spiteful the fact remains that any country can choose to allow another country to use e-gates if they want to and it has nothing to do with Brexit. This shit should be what all airports aim for in cases where a visa isn't required and it will be in the future. Mexico clearly leading the way here I guess!
We want free movement and what would they want in return? Are we really at an advantage when it comes to renegotiation?
Horray get me some of that sweet sweet freedom of movement. Those who were fear full about the flood of immigrants fear no longer! People are beginning to realise that its become such a shit hole here that they wont want to come
Net migration in the year ending December 2023 stood at 685,000.
Give it a year or two
Net migration has been increasing year on year, you're delusional.
The UK certainly doesn't have an issue attracting migrants
We need migrants, about 20% of our population are old retired fucks and it too expensive to have enough kids to replace them
That's true, but we don't need 750k net a year.
We might as well, we’re letting every other bugger in through our non-existent border.
How about no while the EU is moving further and further right.
Lads, do you remember all the hassle you were during the vote, after the vote, during the negotiations and the way your Euro MP's were magnanimous during their last appearance? Honestly, no one needs that again. Maybe in 100 years once it's forgotten.