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
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Germany's Merz faces pressure to toughen stance on Israel
BERLIN, July 22 (Reuters) - German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is under pressure to take a firmer stance towards Israel, with members of his own coalition calling for Berlin to join a statement by dozens of Western nations condemning the "inhumane killing" of Palestinians. Merz, who leads Germany's centre-right CDU, has been increasingly critical of Israel. But Germany was notably absent from the joint statement issued on Monday by the EU and 28 Western countries including Britain and France, which called on Israel to immediately end the war. The countries condemned what they called the "drip feeding of aid" to Palestinians in Gaza and said it was "horrifying" that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid. Reem Alabali Radovan, international development minister in Merz's cabinet and a member of the centre-left SPD junior coalition partners, said on Tuesday she was unhappy with Germany's decision not to sign it. "The demands in the letter from the 29 partners to the Israeli government are understandable to me. I would have wished for Germany to join the signal sent by the 29 partners," she said. Merz's office says Germany's criticism of Israel is similar to that of other allies. Merz said on Tuesday he had told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "very clearly and very explicitly that we do not share the Israeli government's policy on Gaza". "Above all we see the great suffering of the civilian population there. That is why I would like to once again renew my call to truly provide the necessary humanitarian aid to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. The way the Israeli army is operating there is not acceptable," he said. Government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said that although Germany did not sign the joint declaration, Merz and his foreign minister "expressed very critical views of Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip yesterday – and in terms of substance and significance, said the same thing." "Their statements are in no way inferior to the joint declaration," Kornelius said. But the decision to withhold Germany's signature from the declaration follows many months in which Germany has taken particular care in public to restrain its criticism of Israeli actions. German officials say their approach to Israel is governed by a special responsibility, known as the Staatsraeson, arising from the legacy of the Nazi Holocaust. They believe they can achieve more through diplomatic back channels than public statements. German statements on Gaza typically include a demand for the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas. The joint statement that Merz declined to sign to this week stopped short of such a demand, although it noted that the hostages were suffering under worsening conditions. Merz is one of the few European leaders who has publicly offered to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without arresting him on a warrant for suspected war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Israel rejects the charges against Netanyahu and says they are political motivated. The ICC says all signatories of the court's founding statute, which include all 27 EU members, are obliged to arrest Netanyahu if he enters their territory. Critics of Merz's approach, including within the SPD coalition partners, say the legacy of the Holocaust cannot be an excuse for ignoring Israeli crimes, and, on the contrary, the post-Holocaust motto of "never again" should apply to Gaza now. 'The situation in Gaza is catastrophic and represents a humanitarian abyss," said a joint statement by two senior SPD lawmakers - foreign policy spokesperson Adis Ahmetovic and rapporteur for the Middle East Rolf Mützenich - who called for Berlin to join the joint declaration. There should be "clear and immediate consequences" for Israel, including the suspension of a pact governing EU-Israeli relations and a halt to the export of weapons to Israel that are used in violation of international law, they said.
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Bank of England chief says ‘not sensible' to tear up ring-fencing rules
Andrew Bailey also stressed that the UK cannot 'compromise' on financial stability amid the Treasury's plans to rip up red tape across the sector. Ring-fencing was brought in after the 2008 financial crisis and requires banks to separate their retail services from their investment banking activities. It aimed to protect UK consumers from the effects of any shocks felt by other parts of a bank and in the global financial markets. But Government plans to reforms the rules, unveiled last week, are intended to make Britain more competitive globally and give banks more flexibility. I think it has established itself as part of the system and to me it would not be sensible to take it away at this point Andrew Bailey, Bank of England Governor Mr Bailey told MPs on the Treasury Committee: 'I do think the ring-fencing regime is an important part of the structure of the banking system. 'It makes the resolution of banks if they're in trouble much easier, and it benefits, particularly in terms of the UK, consumers, business and households. 'I'm sure there are things that can be improved and we will work constructively to get through that process.' He added: 'I think it has established itself as part of the system and to me it would not be sensible to take it away at this point.' The ring-fencing shake-up formed part of Rachel Reeves's 'Leeds reforms' – a package of measures which she said are set to be the biggest changes to financial services for more than a decade. Ms Reeves said regulation 'still acts as a boot on the neck of businesses' in many areas, and urged regulators to avoid 'excessive caution'. Asked if he agreed with those comments, Bank of England chief Mr Bailey said: 'It's not a term I'd use.' 'I think there are areas that we clearly should look at it… we've announced a whole range of things we're doing, and that's a good thing,' he told the committee. 'But we can't compromise on basic financial stability and that would be my overall message.' However, Mr Bailey added that, post-Brexit, the UK is in a better position to reshape the financial rule book to suit the sector, rather than relying on EU rules.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump's shift on Ukraine has been dramatic – but will it change the war?
Donald Trump presents himself as a peerless president, an unrivaled negotiator, even a 'genius'. So it's a unique moment when he comes close – I emphasize the qualifier –to conceding that another leader has outfoxed him. Trump suggested as much recently when characterizing Vladimir Putin's modus operandi. 'Putin,' he told reporters on 13 July, 'really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then bombs everybody in the evening.' Melania Trump may have contributed to this reassessment. As Trump recounted recently, when he told her about a 'wonderful conversation' with the Russian leader, she responded, 'Oh, really? Another city was just hit.' Trump's new take on Putin is a break with the past. His esteem for Putin–whose decisions he has described as 'savvy' and 'genius' – has contrasted starkly with his derisive comments about the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he memorably disrespected during a White House meeting and even blamed for starting the war. As recently as February, he declared that Russia's invasion didn't matter to the United States because, unlike Europe, it was separated from Ukraine by 'a big, big beautiful ocean'. He criticized Joe Biden's assistance to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayers' money. Now, Trump has not only changed his view of Putin, stunning many within his 'America First' MagaA movement; he's decided to start arming Ukraine. Well, sort of. Trump has gone beyond effectively conceding that Putin has played him. He has decided to sell military equipment to individual European countries so that they can supply Ukraine and restock their arsenals with purchases from the United States. The president formally announced the change during his 14 July meeting with Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary general. There was more. Trump warned Putin that if he did not accept a ceasefire – which he has steadfastly refused, just as he has ignored Trump's demand to stop bombing Ukraine's cities – within 50 days, Russia would be slammed with tariffs as high as 100%, as would countries that continued to trade with it after the deadline. Two things are clear. First, Trump's perspective on Putin has changed, unexpectedly and dramatically. Second, a war that Trump once said was none of America's business now apparently matters. The president said European countries would buy 'top of the line' American military equipment worth 'billions of dollars' to arm Ukraine. According to one report citing 'a source familiar with the plan', the total will be $10bn. This all sounds like a very big deal. But here's where it becomes important to go beyond the headlines and sound bites and delve into the details. Take the $10bn figure. That's certainly not chump change. Moreover, the main piece of equipment specified so far, the Patriot 'long range, high altitude, all weather' missile defense system, will provide desperately needed relief to Ukrainian city dwellers, who have endured relentless waves of drone attacks – several hundred a night – followed by missiles that slice through overwhelmed defenses. Ukraine has some Patriots but needs more: it's a vast country with a dozen cities whose populations exceed 400,000. However, a Patriot battery (launchers, missiles, a radar system, a control center, antenna masts, and a power generator) costs $1bn, the missiles alone $4m apiece. Ukraine may not need 10 Patriot batteries, but even a smaller number will consume a large proportion of the $10bn package. The other system that has been mentioned is the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm), which combines stealth technology and GPS guidance with a 230-mile range. Ukraine will be able to use its American-made F-16 jets to fire Jassms into Russia from positions beyond the reach of Russian air defense systems. But a single Jassm costs around $1.5m, so the costs will add up quickly. Additional items have been mentioned but only generically; still, their price must also be figured in, bearing in mind that the war could drag on. So, $10bn could be depleted quickly. Moreover, beyond a certain point the US cannot sell equipment from its own stocks without regard to its military readiness requirements. Precisely for that reason, the defense department recently declined to send Ukraine some of the equipment promised under Joe Biden. And Trump has not said that there will be follow-on sales to benefit Ukraine once the $10bn mark is reached. Even if he were to change his mind, individual European countries would be able to buy only so much American weaponry without straining their finances, especially because France and Italy have opted out of the arrangement. Trump has been uninterested in joining the recent move by the UK and the EU to impose a $47.60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil sales, toughening the $60 limit the west enacted in 2022. Finally, Trump isn't going to resume Biden's multi-billion-dollar military assistance packages – 70-plus tranches of equipment, according to the DoD. Trump's 50-day tariff deadline permits Putin to continue his summer offensive, and may even provide an incentive to accelerate it. Russia has already shrugged off Trump's tariff threat. Its exports to the US in 2024 amounted to $526m, a tiny fraction of its global sales. By contrast, Trump's secondary tariffs will hurt Russia, which earned $192bn in 2024 from its global exports of oil and related products, much of that sum from India and China. If the president follows through with his threat, Beijing will surely retaliate, and the consequence will be painful: the United States exports to China totaled $144bn last year. Will Trump proceed anyway, and during his ongoing trade wars, which have already started increasing prices in the US? His track record on tariff threats leaves room for doubt. Ukraine's leaders are understandably elated by Trump's reappraisal of Putin. But it's premature to conclude that it's a turning point that could change the war's trajectory. Washington's new policy may prove far less momentous than Maga critics fear and not quite as transformative as Kyiv and its western supporters hope for. Rajan Menon is a professor emeritus of international relations at the City College of New York and a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
