To make the positive case for free movement, it helps if people are better informed about how it works in practice. I have experienced this in Belgium myself & Mike Galsworthy recently explained it well while being interviewed by Arthur Snell. Under EUFOM everyone has the opportunity to move to another EU country. After 3 months they must register with the local authority which involves proving you have employment, private income or are dependent on another by showing information such as a recent bank statement, address, proof of study, income, pension etc. A joined up well functioning ID system entails there can be no cheating!
Other EU countries may have slightly different systems in place but as I said this is my experience of Belgium.
Yes true, needs to be explained, people need to know the facts.
But above all pro-EU campaigns have to include pro free market campaigns, as Roland said. Campaigners have to make the case in the media, and it should be on leaflets, pamphlets, websites, manifestos.
The benefits are huge but even pro EU people used to neglect to make the case for freedom of movement, or they’d defend it by talking up the restrictions or making the case for an emergency brake. So it felt for many people that it was something done to us, a trade off for us to endure.
No. We must lead on the benefits, the privilege it is for all of us. People took it for granted. Enjoying the raw of travel across Europe while bemoaning Polish immigration etc
In 2008 when I was not politically aware I lived in Amsterdam. It was easy for me to move there, and easy to work, all I had to do was get a number and apply for jobs. I had no idea at the time I was benefitting from freedom of movement. Now, not saying I was ignorant, but lots of people weren’t aware of how they were benefitting. All becuase so few politicians were willing to make the positive case for feeedom of movement.
When I wrote pro freedom of movement articles I always emphasised that it’s an individual liberty we all enjoy, a great advance for freedom. That’s not a message that has broad appeal sadly, and was written for politics nerds, but it’s not hard to list the benefits we enjoy of freedom or movement concisely and clearly. Especially as we’re still now experiencing the losses of those freedoms. Getting even worse as more checks come online etc
I think things could turn relatively quickly, not for a while, but when the mood changes it will change quite quickly I reckon. The disaster of the USA destroyed the US-centric Brexit view. The economic argument has been disproven so throughly in multi-layered ways.
The biggest problem is a lot of people not wanting to admit they were wrong plain and simple and it was a stupid thing to do.
I see the argument for joining the SM and CU as safer for the EU, who would be rightly suspicious of our reliability for full membership right now.
But when we are in a position to have rebuilt that trust (starting with changing our voting system) I believe a two-stage referendum as planned by Iceland would be best; perhaps a 60% threshold to enter negotiations and a simple majority on the final agreement. This would help neutralize Cummings' campaigning on all the opt-outs we have to "give up"
I believe that once negotiations are under way the process will gain its own momentum (rather like Brexit did) and people will ultimately warm up to the loss of opt-outs during negotiations rather than if they are asked about them at the outset. If the Brexit we ended up with was on the ballot in 2016 I doubt a majority would have voted for it.
I greatly appreciate your ongoing commentary on this. My heart wants (Re)join, but there is indeed a lack of realism in UK on the deeply political requirements of the accession process, so this sort of sobriety is welcome.
As commentators like David Henig have pointed out on the butterfly website, a process of incremental technical engagement with the EU is essentially imposed on the UK whether there is political will to rejoin or not. For that reason I suspect the "tractor beam" characterisation carries its own hazards as a pathway to bring the UK back into the EU. In just the same way as an argument of economic and technical inevitability did not win the last referendum, I doubt it would win another. As you rightly point out, consent to rejoin must be enthusiastic.
For its faults, the light-on-detail pro-Europeanism which continues to haunt British politics is necessary and indispensable. It is the power plant for any positive future relationship with the EU, whether or not that includes membership. It's also born of desire to be part of a wider community, international relevance, respect and shared endeavour; the stuff that nations are made of.
The Lib Dems haven't really spelt out the details of their proposals and particularly haven't said what trade-offs they're prepared to make to get an agreement. I'm no trade expert but from what I can gather the EU would require some limited agreement on FoE to agree a CU and avoid unfair competition. I think this is a trade-off the Lib Dems would be prepared to make because it would involve skilled trades. While some voters want to reduce all immigration full stop, most voters seem more willing to accept highly skilled immigrants.
Moreover a CU would mainly benefit SMEs and sole traders, importers and exporters, and limited FoM could be sold to them as a price worth paying for very much reduced paperwork, and for them to re-establish old relationships (assuming of course the UK businesses haven't already been driven out of business by Brexit).
For the foreseeable future the small boats issue is going to persist as a problem that contaminates the bigger issue of immigration, so I think the small steps approach is likely to be more successful than the big bang approach you seem to be advocating.
The case for FoE is simply a subset of the benefits of immigration. Few politicians and political commentators are willing to make that case so your strategy for rejoining falls at the first hurdle.
Moreover, having dismissed the Libearl Democrats on the basis that they want to avoid addressing the issue of FoE, you then proceed to outline a phased process for ultimately rejoining, and set up a strawman argument that this is a process that all supporters of rejoining would abhor. And yet it is precisely a phased approach to rejoining that the Liberal Democrats are promoting, such that the issue of full FoM doesn't become an immediate block to any meaningful progress.
The Liberal Democrats do need to put some more flesh on their ideas, perhaps accepting limited FoE to achieve some sectoral agreements as part of a initial limited customs union. However if the UK is to rebuild its relationship with the EU this requires a softly, softly approach rather than confronting the issue of immigration head on.
It's true, I was slightly too dismissive of the Libdems who are by far the nearest to understanding how to take Rejoin forward. But as far as I know they still have it back to front - primarily pushing for a customs union followed by single market.
Surely the demographic shift alone of Births and Deaths will take care of the Join Question. In ten years it's moved fro. 52/48 to 40/60, long may brexiteers die faster than remainers. However, I agree that the question of straight in/out should include FoM, Euro and Schengen. N&S Ireland may want a say too.
Since 17th June, Ed Davey has been clearly saying the UK needs to rejoin the Single Market, not just a CU as he was saying before. The Greens are in favour of rejoining in full and even Burnham has previously said the UK should rejoin the EU (although he's been more equivocal recently while trying to get elected in a heavily Leave-voting constituency). Once he's safely installed as PM I would expect Starmer's red lines to be quietly dropped.
To make the positive case for free movement, it helps if people are better informed about how it works in practice. I have experienced this in Belgium myself & Mike Galsworthy recently explained it well while being interviewed by Arthur Snell. Under EUFOM everyone has the opportunity to move to another EU country. After 3 months they must register with the local authority which involves proving you have employment, private income or are dependent on another by showing information such as a recent bank statement, address, proof of study, income, pension etc. A joined up well functioning ID system entails there can be no cheating!
Other EU countries may have slightly different systems in place but as I said this is my experience of Belgium.
Yes true, needs to be explained, people need to know the facts.
But above all pro-EU campaigns have to include pro free market campaigns, as Roland said. Campaigners have to make the case in the media, and it should be on leaflets, pamphlets, websites, manifestos.
The benefits are huge but even pro EU people used to neglect to make the case for freedom of movement, or they’d defend it by talking up the restrictions or making the case for an emergency brake. So it felt for many people that it was something done to us, a trade off for us to endure.
No. We must lead on the benefits, the privilege it is for all of us. People took it for granted. Enjoying the raw of travel across Europe while bemoaning Polish immigration etc
In 2008 when I was not politically aware I lived in Amsterdam. It was easy for me to move there, and easy to work, all I had to do was get a number and apply for jobs. I had no idea at the time I was benefitting from freedom of movement. Now, not saying I was ignorant, but lots of people weren’t aware of how they were benefitting. All becuase so few politicians were willing to make the positive case for feeedom of movement.
When I wrote pro freedom of movement articles I always emphasised that it’s an individual liberty we all enjoy, a great advance for freedom. That’s not a message that has broad appeal sadly, and was written for politics nerds, but it’s not hard to list the benefits we enjoy of freedom or movement concisely and clearly. Especially as we’re still now experiencing the losses of those freedoms. Getting even worse as more checks come online etc
I think things could turn relatively quickly, not for a while, but when the mood changes it will change quite quickly I reckon. The disaster of the USA destroyed the US-centric Brexit view. The economic argument has been disproven so throughly in multi-layered ways.
The biggest problem is a lot of people not wanting to admit they were wrong plain and simple and it was a stupid thing to do.
I see the argument for joining the SM and CU as safer for the EU, who would be rightly suspicious of our reliability for full membership right now.
But when we are in a position to have rebuilt that trust (starting with changing our voting system) I believe a two-stage referendum as planned by Iceland would be best; perhaps a 60% threshold to enter negotiations and a simple majority on the final agreement. This would help neutralize Cummings' campaigning on all the opt-outs we have to "give up"
I believe that once negotiations are under way the process will gain its own momentum (rather like Brexit did) and people will ultimately warm up to the loss of opt-outs during negotiations rather than if they are asked about them at the outset. If the Brexit we ended up with was on the ballot in 2016 I doubt a majority would have voted for it.
I greatly appreciate your ongoing commentary on this. My heart wants (Re)join, but there is indeed a lack of realism in UK on the deeply political requirements of the accession process, so this sort of sobriety is welcome.
As commentators like David Henig have pointed out on the butterfly website, a process of incremental technical engagement with the EU is essentially imposed on the UK whether there is political will to rejoin or not. For that reason I suspect the "tractor beam" characterisation carries its own hazards as a pathway to bring the UK back into the EU. In just the same way as an argument of economic and technical inevitability did not win the last referendum, I doubt it would win another. As you rightly point out, consent to rejoin must be enthusiastic.
For its faults, the light-on-detail pro-Europeanism which continues to haunt British politics is necessary and indispensable. It is the power plant for any positive future relationship with the EU, whether or not that includes membership. It's also born of desire to be part of a wider community, international relevance, respect and shared endeavour; the stuff that nations are made of.
The Lib Dems haven't really spelt out the details of their proposals and particularly haven't said what trade-offs they're prepared to make to get an agreement. I'm no trade expert but from what I can gather the EU would require some limited agreement on FoE to agree a CU and avoid unfair competition. I think this is a trade-off the Lib Dems would be prepared to make because it would involve skilled trades. While some voters want to reduce all immigration full stop, most voters seem more willing to accept highly skilled immigrants.
Moreover a CU would mainly benefit SMEs and sole traders, importers and exporters, and limited FoM could be sold to them as a price worth paying for very much reduced paperwork, and for them to re-establish old relationships (assuming of course the UK businesses haven't already been driven out of business by Brexit).
For the foreseeable future the small boats issue is going to persist as a problem that contaminates the bigger issue of immigration, so I think the small steps approach is likely to be more successful than the big bang approach you seem to be advocating.
The case for FoE is simply a subset of the benefits of immigration. Few politicians and political commentators are willing to make that case so your strategy for rejoining falls at the first hurdle.
Moreover, having dismissed the Libearl Democrats on the basis that they want to avoid addressing the issue of FoE, you then proceed to outline a phased process for ultimately rejoining, and set up a strawman argument that this is a process that all supporters of rejoining would abhor. And yet it is precisely a phased approach to rejoining that the Liberal Democrats are promoting, such that the issue of full FoM doesn't become an immediate block to any meaningful progress.
The Liberal Democrats do need to put some more flesh on their ideas, perhaps accepting limited FoE to achieve some sectoral agreements as part of a initial limited customs union. However if the UK is to rebuild its relationship with the EU this requires a softly, softly approach rather than confronting the issue of immigration head on.
It's true, I was slightly too dismissive of the Libdems who are by far the nearest to understanding how to take Rejoin forward. But as far as I know they still have it back to front - primarily pushing for a customs union followed by single market.
Surely the demographic shift alone of Births and Deaths will take care of the Join Question. In ten years it's moved fro. 52/48 to 40/60, long may brexiteers die faster than remainers. However, I agree that the question of straight in/out should include FoM, Euro and Schengen. N&S Ireland may want a say too.
Since 17th June, Ed Davey has been clearly saying the UK needs to rejoin the Single Market, not just a CU as he was saying before. The Greens are in favour of rejoining in full and even Burnham has previously said the UK should rejoin the EU (although he's been more equivocal recently while trying to get elected in a heavily Leave-voting constituency). Once he's safely installed as PM I would expect Starmer's red lines to be quietly dropped.
https://rolandmcs.substack.com/p/on-rejoin?r=1w1zo8&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=285329694
(Meant to link to a previous reply acknowledging this.)