Share this content

Freedom of Movement of EU Citizens

Freedom of Movement of EU Citizens

Didn't find your answer?

A significant factor in the Brexit vote was no doubt the requirement to allow free movement of EU ciitizens in and out of the UK. What does this really mean though.

Bearing in mind that this condition was primarily in connection with the Single Market, there seems to be no disctinction between, for example, BMW bringing a top engineer to the UK to work on a four year project and someone and his/her family from another part of the EU just getting on a ferry or train and arriving in the UK with nowhere to stay, no money, no job prospects and perhaps an immediate need for medical treatment

This is a very simplified example for a highly emotive subject, as many will actually see no difference between the two examples and others will say that there is a big distinction between these two examples.

I guess that Accountants would see the benefits of free movement of people for trade purposes and that does make sense to me as far as the Single Market is concerned, but should our exit negotiations with the EU include some form of free movement of people for trade purposes only or is that just going too far and the only solution is free movement for all or free movement for none.

Bear in mind that we are now looking primarily at a trading agreement with the EU Project.

 

Replies (38)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
30th Jun 2016 11:07

Immigration's not an issue to me. The most prosperous part of the UK is the most populous.

Draw your own conclusions.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By free-rider
30th Jun 2016 11:39

It would be interesting to see how UK plans to treat the EU citizens who are already in this country as that could affect the numbers of immigrants coming to the UK before the actual divorce day with EU.
IMO, and I`m being EU national myself, the immigration could and should be controlled by cutting the access to the benefits.

Thanks (0)
Replying to free-rider:
Tornado
By Tornado
30th Jun 2016 12:06

I know that some 'immigrants' are worried about 'being sent back' but I would never support that approach unless those people were truly undesirables. There has to be a cut-off point though and that surely has to be the day we formally leave the EU Project.

A problem with cutting access to benefits is that anyone (not just 'immigrants') who has their benefits cut might end up on the street, but not for long. We have an obligation to look after people so that they do not end up on the street and this uses up resources and money.

On the subject of 'immigrants', once you are settled in the UK and pledge your allegiance to the UK, you are no longer an immigrant. Those newly coming in are though. It is interesting to hear the heated complaints from my second and third generation 'immigrant' clients about the numbers of new immigrants which sort of highlights the problem of what do we mean when we refer to 'immigrants'

Furthermore, I can trace members of my family back to eastern Europe but at some stage they ceased to be immigrants and became UK Citizens.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By free-rider
30th Jun 2016 12:39

I do not believe that any shape or form of repatriation could take place.
I see the issue with UK social security system is that it is too easy to abuse it and take advantage of it – fraudulent single parents on tax credits, “unemployed” construction workers on JSA who are paid cash in hand and come for signing to the DWP wearing paint covered robes and list goes on.

I don`t think it should be about when the person has come to the UK, but more about the intentions – intentions to learn the language, to stay permanently and become a part of a community, assimilate in some way.

I`ve seen some people who moved to the UK in 2004 but have no intention in learning the language and becoming the part of a community to the point that they can`t even understand the menu in Starbucks. Can you judge the immigrants based simply on the time they have spent in this country?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
30th Jun 2016 11:48

To start with we need to separate the thought process about EU immigration from that on mass refugee migration.

It is the Schengen agreement that causes the problem. Once a non EU migrant has breached the rather porous outer EU borders, they can travel around the EU at will, eventually arriving at Calais.

Pre 9/11, Schengen was a reasonable idea, given current security needs it should be scrapped!

Thanks (2)
Tornado
By Tornado
30th Jun 2016 13:32

Another complication is that 'immigration' is not necessarily the same as freedom of movement. I can see freedom of movement relating to the ability of any EU citizen to spend a year or so working in the UK, then a period of time in Germany and then perhaps moving on to France for a time. This is not immigration in the traditional sense, but may still create problems for housing, schooling, NHS, etc, as there can be no plan as to how many people need to be catered for in the future.

Traditional immigration is moving to the UK with a clear intention to stay here and become 'British', or at least pledge allegiance to the UK.

Still a confusion as to what immigration really is.

We could have 'controlled immigration' for those that want to settle here and 'temporary immigration (based on freedom of movement)' for those that may only be here from the EU on a temporary basis.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
avatar
By johnjenkins
30th Jun 2016 13:59

Unless you have the proper infrastructure then the net levels on migration or immigration that the UK has experienced cannot be coped with. The EU don't care nor will they do anything about it. Therein lies the problem. I don't see why the trade and movement of people have to be tied, not do the other 17M odd leavers. The movement of workers should be based on the country providing the work. Refugees are a totally different kettle of fish. We need a city built to house these people. They would work in the "city" (I use city because there are a lot of refugees in the world) then either move on or be re-patriated. In any case if the EU want to continue then they will have to change as other countries will vote to leave as well.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
30th Jun 2016 14:02

One of the leaving agreements will surely be that those in the UK will stay and those UK people in other countries will stay there.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By free-rider
30th Jun 2016 14:35

johnjenkins wrote:

One of the leaving agreements will surely be that those in the UK will stay and those UK people in other countries will stay there.

I can see a way of taking advantage of such agreement and a queoue of rEU nationals coming to the UK within the next 2 or so years just to "register" and get a NINo.

Just to have an option to be able to come back to the UK after Brexit if they wish so.

Thanks (0)
Replying to free-rider:
avatar
By johnjenkins
30th Jun 2016 14:46

The way our politicians are performing at the mo we might not even get an exit agreement.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By free-rider
30th Jun 2016 15:16

johnjenkins wrote:

The way our politicians are performing at the mo we might not even get an exit agreement.

It`s been just a week since the referendum - you can`t expect much to be done in a such short timeframe.

On the other hand it seems that even Leave camp did not expect to win and they are now forced to make up things as they go.

Thanks (0)
Replying to free-rider:
By petersaxton
03rd Jul 2016 01:26

Having a NINO wont mean much. People would have to prove unbroken residence. It's one think to enter the UK for a week or two and another to be resident for years with the odd holiday.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
avatar
By free-rider
30th Jun 2016 16:29

Disabled Campaigner wrote:

Firstly stop buying their cars thus putting thousands of German car workers out of work, and secondly, by deporting some 4 million EU citizens currently here, and let the EU pay their benefits, health care etcetera.

It`s easier to say than actually do.

Regarding the PM with large <...> - at the moment it seems that PM position is like hot potato and politicians are trying to avoid becoming that person who will start the process of Brexit.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
avatar
By johnjenkins
30th Jun 2016 16:40

I wonder if TM's spherical objects have moved that far down.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Jun 2016 17:08

As long as the shuttle ferries are efficient bringing back the one and a bit million Brits in the EU when going the other way.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
30th Jun 2016 19:43

DJKL wrote:

As long as the shuttle ferries are efficient bringing back the one and a bit million Brits in the EU when going the other way.

A trade of 1 million Brits for 4 million East Europeans etc would hurt the EU far more than us. Just think of the saving to the NHS having 3 million less patients to treat.
We wouldn't need to replace the EU doctors and nurses.

Also, we would need less houses, solve school crowding, and empty a couple of jails.

The downside of course is that we would have to re open British Leyland and all start driving Morris Marinas and Allegros. The more senior members will remember the "innovative" square steering wheel on the Allegro, and it's appeal to your gambling instincts as you hit the brake peddle and wondered if it would actually stop before you smashed into the vehicle in front. You could always spot an Allegro driver by his nervous twitch.

So, who needs the EU?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
30th Jun 2016 21:12

Depends upon the age demographic of those returning, if lots of pensioners etc from sunny Spain whilst they are unlikely to use schools they may well use hospitals/ care facilities etc. Think of the queues at the bingo!!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
Glenn Martin
By Glenn Martin
30th Jun 2016 23:59

Have you thought how the NHS will operate if we sent back the 30% of overseas workers who currently provide the care in our hospitals within the NHS.

Also I beleive there are something like 800k Brits who have retired to Spain, as they are old I dare say they will draw a lot on the Spanish health system. Possibly a lot more of a drain than 4m poles and Romaiians in there 30's who have come here to work. Are the Spanish up in arms to get these old sponges off their shores or do they feel they contribute by buying houses and spending there pensions in the sun.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Glennzy:
By petersaxton
03rd Jul 2016 01:36

“Have you thought how the NHS will operate if we sent back the 30% of overseas workers who currently provide the care in our hospitals within the NHS.”

Where did you get the 30% from? Never mind it’s EU workers we are discussing.
78.5% are British
3.6% are nationals of EU countries
4% are nationals of Commonwealth countries
13.9% are nationals of other countries
https://fullfact.org/health/immigration-and-nhs-how-many-staff-are-eu-an...
There's a lot of misinformation being spread around.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
03rd Jul 2016 09:45

Glennzy wrote:

Have you thought how the NHS will operate if we sent back the 30% of overseas workers who currently provide the care in our hospitals within the NHS.<.

You conveniently forget that there will also me several million less people using NHS services.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
avatar
By ollie
01st Jul 2016 10:03

Disabled Campaigner wrote:

It's not about closing borders or throwing people out, it's about having control over who comes in.
Of course it will mean that we can now get rid of the criminals and undesirables more easily.

What we must not do under any circumstances is to have trade linked to free movement of people. They have nothing to do with each other and the demands by the Eu are a ploy to blackmail Britain.

If, and it's a huge if, we actually get a Prime Minister with a large set of spherical objects, then in the event of trade barriers we could make life very difficult for the EU. Firstly stop buying their cars thus putting thousands of German car workers out of work, and secondly, by deporting some 4 million EU citizens currently here, and let the EU pay their benefits, health care etcetera.


That's a cunning plan, ByDisabledCampaigner, apart from the minor detail of the millions of UK jobs (including mine) which depend on us having access to the single market.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
avatar
By Discountants
02nd Jul 2016 17:10

Disabled Campaigner wrote:

What we must not do under any circumstances is to have trade linked to free movement of people. They have nothing to do with each other and the demands by the Eu are a ploy to blackmail Britain.

I'm sorry I really need to take issue with this!
Free movement of goods, capital and people are the basic tenants of Liberty dating back the to enlightenment.
This is why they are linked - if you don't like it then you pretty much don't like Liberty (as many people do not) and would prefer governments to decide what you do (and also therefore what others do).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Discountants:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
02nd Jul 2016 18:05

Liberal nonsense. Free movement of goods is not dependent on free movement of people. As for liberty, a lot of my family died for this countries liberty in every war Britain has been involved in, and that had nothing to do with ensuring we could buy German cars or sell our goods to the French. The only link between the two is in the minds of those who still want to impose the EU superstate on Britain against our wishes.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Discountants:
By petersaxton
03rd Jul 2016 02:01

You can't expect people to be allowed to come to our country and live in our houses, use our education system and health system. There should be no liberty to plunder another country of what they have built up over the years.

Thanks (1)
Replying to petersaxton:
avatar
By ScribbleD
05th Jul 2016 12:22

petersaxton wrote:

You can't expect people to be allowed to come to our country and live in our houses, use our education system and health system. There should be no liberty to plunder another country of what they have built up over the years.

Speechless!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By In a Daze
01st Jul 2016 00:31

The situation is quite a simple one in reality i agree with free movement of labour. However, you should not be allowed to come to the UK to look for a job unless you can support yourself and take out medical insurance.

Of course once you have contributed to the system for a period of 4 years you of course be entitled to the usual benefits and access to the NHS.

And of course refugees are a different case all together

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
04th Jul 2016 09:05

What might be interesting is (as we haven't sanctioned article 50 so are still part of the EU) how long the legal company taking the Government to court over leaving the EU (perhaps the European Court of human rights) can string it out. We could have another 2 general elections and still be in the EU. There would probably be 20m odd voting for Ukip. Still it would keep Nigel in work and annoy hell out of Juncker and co.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
04th Jul 2016 10:09

johnjenkins wrote:

What might be interesting is (as we haven't sanctioned article 50 so are still part of the EU) how long the legal company taking the Government to court over leaving the EU (perhaps the European Court of human rights) can string it out. We could have another 2 general elections and still be in the EU. There would probably be 20m odd voting for Ukip. Still it would keep Nigel in work and annoy hell out of Juncker and co.

They cannot delay it at all as their claim has no merit. There is no requirement for a parliamentary debate or for any vote by parliament. This is merely a desperate publicity stunt by disgruntled remainers, and if they ever get around to filing this in court it will be thrown out as vexatious, without merit, and as an unlawful attempt to overthrow a legal vote by the nation.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Disabled Campaigner:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
04th Jul 2016 11:18

The irony;

We now have have those of Remain sympathies arguing that the UK parliament is sovereign and those backing Leave arguing ( despite campaigning against poor representation/ accountability within Europe) that parliament should be silenced and the executive should act without it needing to be consulted.

Certainly seems to be into Through the Looking Glass territory.

I am now starting to seriously think that those who voiced concerns about the activities of CERN and their LHG had a point, the only logical conclusion to recent events is somehow CERN managed to tear the fabric of space/time and we do now all reside in an alternate dimension.

Well, must dash now, I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date; tea party to attend.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
04th Jul 2016 18:14

DJKL wrote:

The irony;

We now have have those of Remain sympathies arguing that the UK parliament is sovereign and those backing Leave arguing ( despite campaigning against poor representation/ accountability within Europe) that parliament should be silenced and the executive should act without it needing to be consulted.

There is no irony in the situation. The leave group are, quite rightly, simply stating that it is undemocratic for a small group of MP's to be allowed to overturn the specific instructions of the majority of the people of the UK.

Therefore the executive should immediately proceed to withdrawal from the EU, there is no need morally, legally, or democratically to seek any authority from parliament.

Thanks (1)
Out of my mind
By runningmate
04th Jul 2016 11:28

I am not at all convinced that a tariff-free relationship between the UK & rEU is in the interests of the UK. We import more from the EU than we export to them & overall we have a rapidly deteriorating balance of imports v exports with the world as a whole.
So a period of WTO tariffs would seem an attractive option.
It follows that free movement of labour with the EU can be kicked into touch (along with any suggestion that the UK should contribute to the rEU budget).
At the same time I think it would be intolerant, un-British & counter-productive to require rEU nationals already living in the UK to leave.
RM

Thanks (1)
Replying to runningmate:
avatar
By johnjenkins
04th Jul 2016 12:00

Well Nigel certainly thinks it's a done deal. So that will do for me. Will he now go back to the Tories and help with the break or could he possibly be going to act as a consultant on other countries that want to leave? can you imagine Nigel as an MEP for another country? He did pull out of the last referendum debate on family grounds so I do hope there is nothing untoward there.

Thanks (1)
Replying to runningmate:
By petersaxton
05th Jul 2016 06:33

It would be stupid to make a decision about EU nationals in the UK without considering UK nationals in other EU countries. This is another negotiation to be add. Maybe as part of tariff free trading even.

Thanks (2)
Replying to petersaxton:
Out of my mind
By runningmate
05th Jul 2016 08:56

I have to disagree. I think Theresa May is 100% wrong on this one. When this was debated in parliament it was condemned by every MP who spoke (from every Westminster party present). There was zero support for her position even from Conservative MPs.
The UK would never require EU residents already here legally to leave. So it is not useful as a bargaining chip because the other side know we are bluffing.
It is also disgraceful to give rEU residents here (and their families & friends) anxieties about their entitlement to remain in the UK - anxieties which could continue for years.
TM should be ashamed of herself.
RM

Thanks (1)
Replying to runningmate:
avatar
By johnjenkins
05th Jul 2016 09:06

As Boris has now shown where his vote lies it may be that TM could not be the next PM. We need a brexit PM until the next General election. Why do we have to have this rigidity regarding freedom of movement? It should be up to each country how many workers they need. I don't actually understand the EU policy thinking on this one. Surely they must realise that if a few million workers decide their own country is [***] and move to another it would have a devastating effect. Typical politics, totally blinkered, but every now and then democracy shakes em up a bit.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
Out of my mind
By runningmate
05th Jul 2016 09:16

The freedom of movement of labour & of capital makes perfect sense in economic theory (if not in the real world).
It also makes sense in the context of forming a single United States of Europe.
That process can now move forward in rEU without the hindrance of the UK continually wanting to negotiate opt-outs & special terms.
I think mentally / emotionally / politically we are now well past the point of no return (or 'no remain') & we should crack on with dismantling our legal intertwined relationship with the EU & get some tariffs in place ASAP.
RM

Thanks (1)
Replying to runningmate:
avatar
By Disabled Campaigner
05th Jul 2016 09:46

runningmate wrote:

It is also disgraceful to give rEU residents here (and their families & friends) anxieties about their entitlement to remain in the UK - anxieties which could continue for years.
TM should be ashamed of herself.
RM

Apparently you are quite content to allow British ex pats in the EU to be subjected to anxieties about whether they will be allowed to remain in Spain/France etc.

One cannot be sorted without the other, and it is only the EU (not Britain) that is trying to link this to a trade agreement. In short the corrupt EU is trying to blackmail Britain. Indeed this morning a French politician threatened to flood Britain with illegal immigrants by giving them free passage through Calais.

Thanks (0)
Tornado
By Tornado
05th Jul 2016 10:08

I have to say that I am quite relieved that we can look forward to some form of control over the free movement of people from the EU. As the EU project forges on, I can see a situation where the EU Project branches out into social engineering and decides where they require people to go and what they want those people to do.

I don't think I am fantasising about this, there are plenty of examples in history where 'the people' have been manipulated in this way and to a certain extent, this has already happened in the UK.

Thanks (1)
Share this content