The youth mobility scheme is just the start of a Brexit reversal
It is easy to argue in favour of joining an EU youth mobility scheme for 18 to 30-year-olds. Use those words and people tend to think about university students and graduates gaining experience of living in other countries. As supporters are eager to point out, we already have such arrangements with 13 countries, from Japan to Australia to Uruguay, and no one goes around saying that we have 'free movement' with those countries.
Then again, an EU scheme could end up with a very different balance. No one worries too much about our youth mobility scheme with Australia, for example, because more UK citizens take advantage of it than Australians – the latter of whom only filled 9,000 of the 45,000 places which were available last year (there is an argument for saying that the greater worry is why so few Australians want to come to Britain? Is it a symptom of national decline?).
A European scheme, on the other hand, may have a very different effect. The demographic which would benefit – 18-30 year olds – rather matches the large numbers of Eastern Europeans who took advantage of free movement during Britain's membership of the EU. It would end up as just another source of cheap labour for employers, which ends up suppressing wages and opportunities for UK workers at the bottom end of the jobs market.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper does sound alive to the risks of entering into a youth mobility scheme. She is reported to be pressing for EU citizens using such a scheme to be limited to twelve months in Britain; any longer and they will appear in official migration figures.
But it isn't just on free movement that Britain risks being drawn back into the EU's sphere of influence. Keir Starmer's reset in EU relations has already, quietly, led to Britain agreeing to mirror EU rules and regulations on food and agriculture. It could mean, unless Starmer succeeds in persuading the EU to allow Britain an exemption, the end of our newfound freedom to embrace gene-edited crops. EU regulations previously destroyed what had been a promising UK industry in genetically modified (GM) foods a quarter of a century ago by making it all but impossible to conduct field trials. We are heading towards the 'vassal state' which many Brexiteers feared.
I don't think we have seen the end of this process. We should expect more initiatives to draw us back towards EU rules and regulations. An 'ever closer union' might be one way of describing it. So long as every step is small, the government's diehard remainers might just get away with it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
India-UK trade deal signals Modi's priorities as New Delhi eyes EU, US pacts
NEW DELHI, July 25 (Reuters) - India's trade deal with Britain is a sign of New Delhi's new gradual shift to opening up its markets while shielding crucial sectors from competition and could be its template for future agreements, government officials and analysts said on Friday. Signed on Thursday and hailed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as "a blueprint for our shared prosperity", the deal with the UK represents India's biggest ever strategic partnership with an advanced economy. It comes at a time rising global trade tensions and at a pivotal moment for India's historically protectionist trade strategy, as the Asian giant looks to strike similar deals with partners including the EU, U.S., and New Zealand. Under the pact, India notably agreed to cut tariffs on imported British vehicles, opening up competition for a domestic industry that makes up nearly 7% of the Indian economy. "This is a policy shift, especially as India has long used high tariffs to protect domestic manufacturers," Ajay Srivastava, founder of Global Trade Research Initiative and a former Indian trade negotiator, told Reuters. The easing of its protectionist stance also applies to government procurement and pharmaceuticals and will likely be replicated in deals with Brussels and Washington, he added. But it remains a cautious shift. Under the UK deal, auto imports will be capped under a quota system to shield local manufacturers, and tariff reductions will be gradual. India has committed to reducing auto tariffs from over 100% to 10% over 15 years, within an annual import quota starting at 10,000 units and rising to 19,000 in year five. Tariff reductions on whisky and other goods will also be phased over several years to allow domestic industries to adjust. India has stuck to its red lines in the deal, making no concessions on agricultural items such as apples and walnuts or dairy products including cheese and whey. "There is no question of opening up the agriculture or dairy sector in any trade negotiation — be it with the EU, Australia, or even the U.S.," a senior Indian official said. The calibrated strategy aims to leverage trade for economic growth, the official said, but the government will continue to shield millions of Indians dependent upon subsistence farming and low-margin work. Indian farmers are eyeing broadened access to the UK's $37.5 billion agriculture market under the deal. And Indian exporters will benefit from zero tariffs on goods including textiles, footwear, gems, furniture, auto parts, machinery, and chemicals. "With zero tariffs, India's garment exports to the UK could double in three years," said N. Thirukkumaran, general secretary of the Tiruppur Exporters Association. "This also paves the way for the EU agreement, which could bring even bigger gains," he added. But the strategy could face a major test in negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which has used the threat of steep tariffs to pressure trading partners into making concessions. Trade Minister Piyush Goyal told Reuters on Thursday that India is also hopeful of reaching a trade agreement with Washington that includes "special and preferred treatment". But the U.S. is pushing for greater access to India's agricultural and dairy markets.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The Tories face trouble in London
Friday morning brings with it the usual raft of council by-election results. It has been another good night for Reform UK, who polled a very strong second in the centre of Cardiff, despite only running a limited campaign. But the most striking result was in Bromley, where Nigel Farage's party won their first London ward with 34 per cent of the vote. That is despite the Tories fielding a strong candidate and canvassing the area hard, with Kemi Badenoch out door-knocking on polling day. Reform ran a good campaign here, with their candidate Alan Cook, well-versed on the issues and the party's messaging. But the party believe that something more fundamental is going on than simply the electorate's disdain for the Tories. Reform's proven ability to win wards, and not merely serve as a protest vote, is encouraging switchers who might have stayed with the Conservatives when they were seen as the most viable option. 'Vote Reform, get Reform' is the message now. That bodes well for Reform in next year's London council elections. Farage's team is targeting the so-called 'doughnut' of outer boroughs on the capital's fringe. These have traditionally been areas of strong Conservative support and were the basis for Boris Johnson's mayoral victories in 2008 and 2012. Kemi Badenoch's party currently control five boroughs here – Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow and Hillingdon – compared to just one – Kensington and Chelsea – in inner London. Farage-led parties have always struggled to do well in London. But within Milbank Tower, staff are currently working out which subjects play well in the 'doughnut'. Just as how Johnson ran against the expansion of the congestion charge in 2008, they are looking for a single issues which they can on next May. The ongoing six-week campaign on crime plays nicely into that. As I wrote about on Tuesday, Farage is going after the 'Mums' vote' of middle-aged women concerned about community safety and their family's life chances. For the Tories, this could well spell trouble. Around of the party's 120,000 members are believed to be based in the capital. But the campaign infrastructure looks to be rusting around them. Less than a decade ago, CCHQ boasted a campaign manager in all 32 London boroughs; now this number has fallen by around 75 per cent. For the past decade, the national party has embraced a strategy which lent into the post-Brexit 'realignment.' This paid dividends in 2019, when the Conservatives could afford to lose Richmond and Putney as they were winning Wakefield and Workington. But now the red wall has gone – and there are few signs that wealthy metropolitans are flocking back now either. Next May, the main focus of election night will be Scotland and Wales. But the story in London could make for grim reading for the Conservatives too.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Asylum seeker ‘faked baby with European' to win right to stay
An asylum seeker won the right to stay in Britain after using fake birth and death certificates to claim he had a baby, an immigration court heard. Sameer Khan, a Pakistani citizen, presented the forged documents to a tribunal as part of his bid to stay in the UK, judges were told. He used the certificates to successfully argue the child proved his marriage to a European citizen was not one of 'convenience' but a genuine relationship, which therefore gave him the right to remain in Britain. But the Home Office has since uncovered evidence that the documents presented to the court to support his case were fake, throwing into doubt whether the child had ever been born. After the accusation of fraud, Mr Khan's case will now be heard again after judges were told his alleged dishonesty undermines his entire case to stay in Britain. An upper immigration tribunal was told Mr Khan had applied for leave to remain under the European Union settlement scheme after claiming to have married an EEA citizen – named at the hearing as Ms Rumenova – in Cyprus in August 2020. The Home Office refused the application on the basis that there were 'reasonable grounds for suspicion that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of securing leave to remain, and so was a marriage of convenience', the tribunal was told. Mr Khan appealed, and a hearing of a first-tier tribunal in November 2024 presided over by Judge Sarah Farmer was shown documents 'said to establish cohabitation and the relationship'. 'There was also a birth certificate for a child, 'AK', said to have been born in the United Kingdom on 10 August 2023 in Slough, County of Berkshire,' the tribunal was told. '[Mr Khan] and [Ms Rumenova] were named on the birth certificate as the parents of AK.' But the couple did not attend the asylum hearing, the tribunal heard, having emailed to say that the baby had died the week before. 'The Judge recorded in the Decision that [they] had emailed the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing, to say their child, AK... had died in the week before the hearing, and so they could not attend the hearing,' the tribunal said. Later that day, the judge was emailed a death certificate, saying the child had died of epilepsy related seizures and vomiting on Nov 15 2024, at Wexham Park Hospital in Slough, and the death had been registered on Nov 18 2024, the same day as the hearing. Judge Farmer allowed Mr Khan's appeal against the Home Office's decision to deny him leave to remain after finding that there was a 'wealth of reliable evidence', including the birth and death certificates, to show the relationship was not one of convenience. Document authenticity concerns After officials made checks, the registry office confirmed the birth and death certificates were forgeries. As a result, upper tribunal judges Daniel Sheridan and Hannah Graves said the evidence undermined the original ruling. They said there was 'sufficient' evidence to establish that there are 'legitimate concerns about whether those documents are genuine and capable of reliance'. 'We therefore find that the Judge was led into error, albeit inadvertently. We find that error was material and infects the credibility assessment made by the Judge, which was central to the findings of fact made and the outcome of the appeal,' they said. 'We therefore do not preserve any findings made in the Decision but set it aside in its entirety. The matter is now remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing, before another judge than Judge Farmer.'
