Should the UK return to EU free movement?

[EEexpat]

Advantages and disadvantages?

Net migration was lower when we were in the EU partly because EU migrant workers tended to come here to work for a period of years then return to their home country (which like the UK has decent healthcare, workers' rights etc etc- plenty to draw someone back). Migrant workers from the developing world are much more likely to stay here permanently because life in the UK has clear advantages. So if you want lower migration EU freedom of movement is a better choice.

How would EU migration stop migration from outside the EU? All we would have is both surely?

@BananaPeels

How would EU migration stop migration from outside the EU? All we would have is both surely?

Yes. The reason people arrive in Calais is due to the EUs failure to control their borders in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea.

The people arriving illegally are a very small proportion of total migrants- about 5%. Most people are coming on work visas (or family schemes associated with work visas) which the government issues because we need migrant workers to fill jobs in all sorts of areas- NHS, social care, agriculture etc. When we had EU freedom of movement more of these jobs were done by EU migrant workers and so we issued far fewer visas to workers from other parts of the world. Ending freedom of movement necessitated a huge increase in visas to people from outside the EU- the so-called Boriswave etc. If you are someone who would like to see lower net migration then getting rid of freedom of movement was exactly the wrong thing to do.

It has suited successive governments to fudge the distinction between legal and illegal migration because they don't want to say publicly that they are actively encouraging the vast majority of migrants to come here- they know that this would be very unpopular and yet without these migrants the country couldn't function. So we continue pretending that migration = people in small boats, which is bad both for the country and for the migrants.

But the total number of vacancies will be the same regardless so what does it matter whether visas are to people in the Eu or not EU?

This is what I was talking about in my post yesterday. EU migrants are far more likely to return to their home countries. Migrants from other parts of the world are more likely to seek to stay permanently. So net migration (people arriving minus people leaving) is lower when you have a higher proportion of EU migrants.

@Toomuchturron

So net migration (people arriving minus people leaving) is lower when you have a higher proportion of EU migrants.

That’s not consistent with your statement that EU migrants are more likely to return. The more the EU migrants return, the greater the openings for non-EU migrants. So, the total remains the same.

For information, UK has lower immigration than, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. So, I am not convinced that being in the EU guarantees lower immigration.

@Toomuchturroni agree with you on propensity to return being greater for the EU citizens and voted remain, but I think that it’s a somewhat overstated/oversimplified argument - there were still more than a million more EU citizens than the government expected who applied for settlement post 2016 and obviously millions more than the 20,000 a year predicted by EU enlargement to Eastern Europe did come to the U.K and stayed for quite lengthy periods, so it’s a general tendency and not a hardline rule. It’s quite stupid that government policy both whilst we were in the EU and afterwards is basically to assume that migration was temporary (impact of migration in official treasury statistics was measured over only a five year period, assuming people will go home before old age and not have kids and often still is!).

In addition, the position will likely be quite different depending on original country and background of the relevant person, as well as the performance of the birth country in the meantime (lots of Poles now returning to Poland in response to economic performance and incentives offered by the government) - all of those things are hard to anticipate in a blanket assumption, or to control for as a U.K. government and it’s not enough to say that it’s definitely not an issue, will always be covered by the economic benefits of EU membership and no one needs to monitor or think about it. If the EU enlarged to Albania, you might expect more permanent migration to the U.K. If a member state’s finances suffered a debt crisis, you might expect the U.K. to be more of a destination for certain countries’ citizens. There is also a downside to people leaving, as some of the EU citizens that are currently leaving will be very highly paid finance executives and entrepreneurs etc, who are very mobile and who we’d prefer to stay and pay tax, whereas those more reliant on state support are more likely to stay.

Further, if we had free movement, anyone from a third country who is given citizenship of an EU country (of which there are many since 2016) can come to Britain and stay as of right - such people might be more likely to come and settle permanently.

None of this is to say we shouldn’t have immigration, from the EU or otherwise, but just to try to add a bit of nuance, because I think that there is quite a lot of generalising in this debate, which helps no one, as it just polarises things further. I don’t think most people oppose immigration - they oppose lack of control/foresight and lack of fairness around required contribution - it’s not really clear, without reform to either or both of freedom of movement and the British welfare state (to require more contribution, as in other EU states) that this issue would be plain sailing politically. For this reason, I’d like to see a better standard of public discussion before any vote.

@renovationchoas

For this reason, I’d like to see a better standard of public discussion before any vote.

I would support this. However, how would it be controlled and monitored to ensure what was being presented to the public was accurate and truthful?

Although it’s 10 years since the referendum, almost every episode of BBC Question Time ends up in discussion about Brexit. The same remain comments appear:

Small boats only appeared after Brexit. A lie as the first small boat was recorded in 2014.

That the UK is no longer in the Dublin agreement is the reason small boats have increased. Another lie as when in the Dublin agreement, the UK took in more immigrants than were returned. Even the host, Fiona Bruce, has had to point that out several times.

UK economy has shrunk by 6% as per the NBER report published in late 2025. A report that has been shown to be flawed as it compared the UK to the US as opposed to France and Germany.

That UK is the second fastest growing economy in the G7, behind US, but ahead of France, Germany and Italy is rarely mentioned.

Yes agree with this.

@EEexpat

sorry, I misread your post initially and realised that you were critiquing the remain “facts” that are trotted out!!

i agree that Dublin is not the sole reason for the small boats. We did have illegal migration from the EU prior to Brexit and we were not sending masses of people back. Nor are lots of EU destination countries sending lots of people back to Greece and Italy, for the reason that doing this is not workable or fair as a burden without a burden sharing agreement. Overselling the Dublin Agreement is one of the things that I think would have to be reasoned out in a better informed debate - it’s something that people often trot out as if it is a magic wand, and it isn’t. Better information sharing in the asylum process is an undoubted benefit of being part of the EU and that should be explained far better to the people of the U.K.

frankly, the reason we left the EU (which I didn’t vote for) is because the Remain side decided immigration and free movement was toxic and preferred to stay quiet on it and not debate it. Ed Balls is great on the Political Currency podcast this week if you want to see what moderate, pro-EU freedom of movement scepticism actually looks like and I’d love to see more nuanced views out there where people are prepared to admit to the disbenefits as well as the advantages of their position - there is no position that is perfect for most people.