Free movement by the back door? EU citizens will be able to work in UK for up to three years as Starmer bows to Brussels ‘youth mobility' demands
Nick Thomas-Symonds said he aimed to model the scheme on those the UK already has with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
These allow those aged 18-30 to live and work her for two years, with a possible year extension, but have a cap on the number allowed it.
The EU Relations Minister had been battling Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who reportedly wanted the scheme to have a 12-month limit, as those here for longer feature in migration statistics.
The length of the scheme Mr Thomas-Symonds is looking to confirm with Brussels is likely to raise fears that it is a way of re-introducing freedom of movement for thousands of foreign workers.
The UK's mobility agreement with Australia is capped at 45,00, although only 9,750 visas were issued in 2024. But the EU has pushed for a much higher cap.
Speaking to the Times Mr Thomas-Symonds said he planned to 'deliver the smart, controlled, balanced scheme that I agreed on in the common understanding', which would be longer than 12 months.
'There's 13 of them that already exist, and it's in that context that we will be negotiating with the EU but the idea or suggestion that this is somehow freedom of movement is completely wrong,' he said.
'Nobody says we have freedom of movement with Andorra or Uruguay, with whom we already have youth mobility schemes.'
In May EU official last night suggested it would want the scheme to be similar in scale to the one Britain has with Australia.
However, given the EU's population is 450million, compared to Australia's 26million, it raises the prospect of allowing in 500,000 from the continent.
The Brussels official told the Times at the time: 'Are Australians better than Europeans? If the same model applies, then the numbers would have to be much higher or it would be hurtful.
'What is the British problem with our young people, our children?'
D owning Street has insisted there are a series of 'red lines' for those continuing discussions.
These include EU migrants not being able to bring dependents or claim benefits under the proposed scheme, while they must pay to use the NHS.
No10 also stressed there would be a cap on the number of youth visas that would be issued to EU nationals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Veterans face eviction from council housing
A dozen veterans fear they will be made homeless after they were threatened with eviction from their homes. The former military and Navy personnel, who have conditions including PTSD, have been told they will have to leave their one-bedroom flats in Bolton after the council decided to stop paying the landlord. The veterans living in Constellation House said they felt they would be treated better if they were asylum seekers, after they were issued with eviction notices from the supported accommodation earlier this month. The proposed evictions were triggered after Bolton council decided to stop paying housing benefit to Qualitas Housing because it concluded the supported accommodation did not meet requirements. The eviction of the veterans, including former members of the Royal Signals, the tank regiment and the Navy, prompted speculation locally that the accommodation was being cleared to house asylum seekers. While the housing association denied it was moving in migrants, saying it was effectively forced to make evictions because of the council, veterans claimed asylum seekers were prioritised over them. The row comes amid concerns from veterans that Afghans given asylum as a result of the worst data leak in British history could be prioritised for housing at the expense of former soldiers. Scott Berry, 55, who served for six years in the Royal Signals, said: 'You have migrants who we don't have a clue about being given everything they need. We are veterans and they don't give a damn. We could be made homeless, we still don't know.' 'You never know what they plan to do, and the council and Qualitas are passing the buck,' he added. 'Have a bit of grace.' The tenants have now said they fear being made homeless and are not getting answers from either the council or the landlord, which they said previously received up to £350 a week per person. Mr Berry said that the housing provider must be serious about evictions to send out notices. 'They said the reason was because the council have held back the housing benefits payments,' he said. 'But you don't issue letters if you don't mean anything. 'They could have just rang the council and discussed it. It doesn't make sense.' 'Sorry state of affairs' Mr Berry said that although the owner was different, nothing had changed with the accommodation and it was putting unnecessary stress on veterans with PTSD. 'We've got PTSD, we do have problems. We don't need things like this happening. It's a sorry state of affairs when you are giving people letters. It's not very nice.' While claims that the building was going to be used to house asylum seekers are false, he said many people believed asylum seekers being housed in hotels were treated better than veterans. The housing system was already at breaking point, with local authority waiting lists at record levels across the country, before it was revealed that Britain was secretly relocating nearly 24,000 Afghan soldiers and their families to the UK after their identities were published online. Local authority tenants include the disabled, victims of domestic violence, people leaving care and benefits claimants, as well as veterans. Under the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government and local authorities are committed to helping military families, including former personnel, to access housing, healthcare and education. But veterans have voiced fears that an influx of Afghans is making it more difficult for them to secure accommodation. The Government will spend £7bn bringing Afghans affected by the leak to Britain over five years, with 18,500 already flown in. According to court documents, Afghans have been sent to Bracknell in Berkshire, Preston in Lancashire, Aberdeen in Scotland, and Cardiff in Wales. Others were sent to West Sussex and Yorkshire, while plans were afoot for hotels to be opened up to them in the North East, East Anglia and the East Midlands. Some of the Afghans sent to Bracknell under the scheme were housed in a four-star hotel, given free English lessons and received medical treatment from the NHS. The block in Bolton was previously managed by another provider and was taken over by Qualitas in February, triggering new applications for the enhanced support rate of housing benefit. After what it described as 'a lengthy period of due diligence and evidence gathering', the council said it did not meet the required standards. Veterans were then issued with eviction notices by Qualitas earlier this month and have been told they have until mid-September to leave their one-bedroom flats. The housing association and the council have now blamed each other for the row, with Qualitas arguing it had to issue the notices because of the withdrawal of housing benefits, while the local authority insisted the accommodation was not suitable. The veterans are being supported by Trevor Jones, the local Reform Party chairman, who has questioned why the housing association would 'throw them out'. He said: 'They wanted to throw 12 servicemen on the street. I have told them not to go anywhere, they are staying put. 'If we can't protect them, then who can we? That doesn't add up. It looks like a plan to get it empty.' Most of those staying in the property were first referred to Constellation House by charities or other local authorities. Exempt accommodation providers receive housing benefits payments directly in exchange for providing support services to vulnerable tenants. Housing benefits paid to exempt accommodation providers are not subject to the same caps as regular housing benefits and the council decided it did not qualify. It is understood the council has to decide eligibility to pay the enhanced support rate of housing benefits based on national legislation that is audited each year to ensure compliance. Ignoring any evidence that accommodation is not fit for purpose could leave the council liable for paying thousands of pounds a month for substandard accommodation and could leave holes in the housing support budget. Bolton council said the decision to issue eviction notices was taken entirely by Qualitas Housing as an independent housing provider and it became aware of the situation only after notices were issued. A spokesman said: 'We share the concerns that have been raised after Qualitas Housing issued section 21 notices to Armed Forces veterans living at Constellation House in Farnworth. 'We are in discussions with the housing provider to resolve this matter. 'The council is also in the process of contacting the tenants to offer the full support of our housing options and advice team. 'Qualitas Housing have confirmed they have not spoken to Serco and do not have any plans to house asylum seekers in the property.' He added: 'Exempt accommodation providers receive uncapped housing benefits directly, in exchange for providing support services to vulnerable tenants. 'In order to qualify, providers must meet specific criteria to ensure appropriate services and facilities are in place. 'While the council previously concluded that Constellation House did not meet the required standards, this decision has now been appealed and we are reviewing the case in line with the legislation.' A spokesman for Qualitas Housing said: 'Qualitas Housing is aware of recent claims suggesting that Armed Forces veterans are being evicted from Constellation House to accommodate asylum seekers. These claims are entirely false. 'The difficult decision to issue section 21 notices followed the local authority's refusal to reinstate housing benefit for the tenants. We are actively supporting the tenants in appealing this decision and are working closely with both them and the council to ensure that no individual is left without suitable accommodation.'
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Palestine pledge could break the law, top lawyers warn Starmer
Some of Britain's most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government's pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law. Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. The letter, seen by The Times, was sent to Lord Hermer, the attorney-general and the government's top legal adviser. The signatories point out that Starmer's pledge risked undermining the government's commitment that international law goes 'absolutely to the heart' of its foreign policy. Among those who signed the letter were seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, one of the UK's most respected lawyers. Pannick represented the government in its Supreme Court battle over the Rwanda relocation scheme. The peers, including some of parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, wrote to Hermer: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' The 1933 treaty, signed in the Uruguayan capital, laid out the four key criteria for statehood in international law. The treaty says a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The letter added that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state, while the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory. They also argued that there is no functioning single government, and it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in the UK. Among the 40 peers to sign the letter were prominent legal figures including Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, Lord Verdirame KC, a leading barrister and professor in international law, Lord Faulks KC, a leading human rights lawyer, and Lord Banner KC, whose report on radical planning reforms are being accepted by Starmer to speed up major infrastructure projects. Labour signatories include Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash and Lord Winston, while Lord Harrington of Watford, the former refugee minister, and Lord Walney, the government's former adviser on political violence and disruption, also signed the letter. Former cabinet ministers include Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Lord Ellis KC, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Baroness Foster of Oxton. Several former Labour attorney-generals are also said to be supportive of the letter. Starmer insisted on Wednesday that Britain's recognition of Palestinian statehood is 'not a gesture' but will secure a viable two-state solution as he embarked on a diplomatic push to secure support for his Middle East peace plan. In a round of calls with world leaders, Starmer said 'recognition needed to be rooted in a process of change that made a material difference to the situation on the ground'. He told his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, that 'recognition was not a gesture, but a driver for real change that ensured a viable two-state solution', Downing Street said. Starmer also stressed the need for a ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the acceleration of aid and ensuring Hamas played no role in a future state. Starmer's announcement has been widely criticised by both Jewish groups and the families of Britons who were held captive, and who have accused the government of reducing hostages to a 'bargaining chip'. On Wednesday evening, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, the Chief Rabbi, accused Starmer of fundamentally undermining the peace and security of both Israelis and Palestinians and said that the announcement at a time when hostages remain captive can 'only disincentivise Hamas from agreeing to a ceasefire'. Writing in The Times, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, warned that Starmer's 'knee-jerk recognition of Palestinian statehood will embolden our enemies at abroad and at home'. The letter was announced after Palestine Action won permission to challenge its ban by the UK government. The High Court ruled that the decision by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation should be reviewed in the courts. Huda Ammori, Palestine Action's co-founder, lodged a bid to challenge the proscription, which was made under anti-terror legislation. The proscription was announced by Cooper after the group claimed responsibility for breaking into RAF Brize Norton on June 20 and inflicting millions of pounds of damage to two Voyager aircraft. In a major ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He concluded that a substantive hearing at the High Court should be held in order to decide the legality of the decision to proscribe the group. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said: 'The court has confirmed the continuation of the proscription order against Palestine Action Group in line with its previous judgement, while allowing permission for a further hearing under the normal judicial review procedures. 'The decision to proscribe was based on strong security advice and the unanimous recommendation by the expert cross-government Proscription Review Group. This followed serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.' She added: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion — this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.'
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Reform UK declares war on Lincolnshire's net-zero projects
Reform UK leaders in Lincolnshire say they have "declared war" on green energy and Skegness MP Richard Tice, Greater Lincolnshire's mayor Dame Andrea Jenkyns and Councillor Sean Matthews, who leads the county council, launched a campaign at a press conference held in Boston said they opposed wind and solar farms and battery storage facilities, with Tice adding: "It is an absolute outrage what the madness of net stupid zero is doing to our county, as well as to our country."The government said green energy was vital in delivering energy security, while Labour MP Melanie Onn argued Reform's stance posed a risk to thousands of jobs. A number of what are termed "nationally significant infrastructure projects" are planned for the county, including large-scale solar farms and a corridor of pylons between Grimsby and Walpole, in fate of such projects will be decided by ministers, not by local councils. Tice told the conference their LORE campaign (Lincolnshire opposes renewable eyesores) would use "every lever available" to stop these developments. He also claimed the government's net-zero plans were to blame for high electricity prices in the government said energy bills had risen because of the country's "reliance on volatile gas markets".During the conference, Dame Andrea compared the fight against green energy to that of Bomber Command, which was based in the county during World War said she wanted to "unleash the spirit of Lincolnshire" against "the planned desecration of our countryside".The mayor said: "We are the bread basket that feeds Britain, so I ask why would any government put out nation's food security in jeopardy because of mass-scale solar farms?" The government has said brownfield sites and lower-grade land should be preferred for solar farms and "even in the most ambitious scenarios" the total area used would occupy up to 0.4% of UK land by Jenkyns claimed net-zero was "a con" and argued that oil and gas were the answer to the UK's energy the words of US president Donald Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign, she said "come 2029", when Reform UK hopes to win a general election, it would be "drill baby drill".Onn, the MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, said Reform's decision to "pit themselves" against a sector which currently employed about 12,500 people in Greater Lincolnshire – "and risking their jobs" – was "completely at odds" with the role of a directly elected mayor, which was to "improve economic growth for their local areas".A spokesperson for the government's Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: "Families have seen their energy bills go through the roof due to our reliance on volatile gas markets controlled by dictators like Putin."Solar and an upgraded grid is central to our mission to become a clean energy superpower, delivering energy security so we can get bills down for good." Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices
