The government is right to reject the EU’s plans for free movement by the backdoor

The EU’s terms for reinstating a youth mobility scheme – from four-year visas to cut-price tuition fees – are utterly unreasonable, says Will Cooling

Yesterday saw Sir Keir Starmer in Germany, where he tried to reinforce the positive impression he made on the global stage in the whirlwind days immediately after his election as Prime Minister. Many will be hoping that the warm words and promise of future action are more illustrative of the new government’s approach to Europe than its refusal to commit to a new UK-EU youth mobility scheme. Many a pro-European saw Labour’s rejection of the proposal as the party continuing to shadow box Eurosceptic phantoms, rather than recognise how attitudes have changed since 2016. 

The reality however is rather more complicated. 

Youth Mobility Schemes are common across the world, with countries providing a streamlined approach for young people to travel overseas for a strictly limited time and purpose. They are essentially “backpackers” visas, with the young person getting to move to a foreign country to do some casual work or study providing they don’t get into trouble, cost the host government anything, or overstay their welcome. The schemes are typically on the basis of mutual recognition, with young people in either country having the same rights. Britain currently has such a scheme with several countries, most notably Anglophone countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand plus longstanding Asian allies including Japan, and South Korea. 

Following Britain’s departure from the European Union and the end of free movement, there had been interest from some European countries in securing similar arrangements. This would have allowed Britain to cherry pick the countries that it wished to work with and risked looking like the richer EU member states were collaborating with British attempts to discriminate against their poorer brethren.  

Therefore, the European Commission stepped in to say that it would handle negotiations with Britain over a youth mobility scheme, rather than leave it to the member states. It is worth noting that this is unusual, given each individual member state is responsible for non-EU immigration into their own country, and even close trading partners of the EU such as Canada technically have individual arrangements with each member state. Still one can see why it’s reasonable for the EU to want one negotiation rather than twenty-six. 

What is not reasonable is the terms that the European Commission is asking for, which go far beyond what youth mobility schemes typically cover. Not only do they want the visas to last for four years, whereas for most countries Britain offers a maximum of 24 months, it also wants Britain to eschew charging the healthcare surcharge, and for people travelling on the visa to have the same access to publicly funded higher education courses as local residents. This would break the clear principle that such schemes do not entitle the recipient of the visa to access public funds during their stay. Indeed this principle is so important that Britain currently requires people to have over £2000 in savings before they can enter the country to prove they can support themselves. And given the high tuition fees Britain charges compared to other countries, and the much greater demand for British higher education compared to European universities, it is a clear attempt to resume a one-sided subsidy. And to cap it all, the Commission would also want people travelling to be able to bring family members with them, and for Britain to charge less for the visas than it does other countries. 

This is not a youth mobility scheme in any fair-minded understanding of the term. Its terms are not only wildly different to what Britain has with other countries around the world but are also different from what European nations have entered into with other non-EU nations. It is nothing but an attempt to bring back freedom of movement by the back door.

There is one slight exception, however. Because despite the proposal being for an EU-UK deal, and despite the Commission expecting it to be concluded on terms wildly favourable to the EU, British people who enter the EU through the scheme would need to stay in one EU nation for the overwhelming majority of their stay. 

Talk about wanting your cake and to eat it too!

Will Cooling writes about politics and pop culture at It Could be Said Substack