EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK for up to seven years

[Deleted]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-seven-years

Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.
...
If such an agreement were struck, and a strict time limit imposed, diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states, while allowing the UK full trade access to the European market.

While the plan will prove highly controversial in many member states, including France, Poland and other central and eastern European nations, the attraction is that it would limit the economic shock to the EU economy from Brexit by keeping the UK in the single market, and lessen the political damage to the European project that would result from complete divorce.
...
High-ranking UK officials said that while it was “very early days”, some form of extended emergency brake was “certainly one of the ideas now on the table”.

Any such agreement would, however, mean the UK would still have to pay a substantial contribution into the EU budget, although probably at a lower rate, and would lose its seat at the negotiating table when rules on the single market were determined, because it would not be a full member of the union
...
EU diplomats and advisers believe the EU should try to keep the UK in the single market if possible, while not giving it such a good deal that other member states would be tempted to follow it out of the club.
...
Speaking in her capacity as deputy director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs, Nathalie Tocci, who is a special adviser to Federica Mogherini, the EU high representative for foreign and security policy, said she believed that the Italian government would back an emergency brake as a way to keep the UK in the single market.

She added that it would have to be time limited, in order not to violate EU treaties. “But I see no reason why it could not last, say, between seven and 10 years. This was how long temporary derogations lasted after the 2004 enlargement, which the UK chose not to benefit from,” she said.
...
The Dutch MEP Hans van Baalen, who is president of the Liberal group in the European parliament and a member of the same party as Dutch prime minster Mark Rutte, said the plan should be taken forward, but would require the UK to give firm assurances about the right of EU citizens currently living and working in Britain to remain in the country.
...
“If the rights of EU citizens now living the UK can be guaranteed permanently by the UK government, then I think we can look at some form of emergency brake on free movement of labour,” he said. “This could be invoked when the British labour market is under particular pressure. I would try to limit it to the UK at this stage.
...
In his attempt to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s EU membership before the referendum, Cameron secured a limited emergency brake that would have enabled Britain to restrict and phase in EU migrants’ access to in-work benefits for the four years after they first arrived in this country.

The UK would be able to apply the “brake” for an initial seven years. But after the Brexit vote the EU declared the deal null and void.

Under current European Economic Area rules (which cover EU member states as well as non-EU members like Norway, which has full access to the single market) there is already an option to apply “safeguard measures” in the event of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist”.

This would allow Norway to impose restrictions on free movement but it has never invoked the clause, because, diplomats say, it is wary of reprisals from EU member states.

[Independent voter]

If they approve it sounds like a good deal. I think a lot of people voted to leave because they were worried about immigrant competition. Not immigrants from Syria but people from the EU who were willing to work for less.

[Deleted]

It does seems very GBP bullish.

However, the EU actually get more out of it than the UK does, since they get to kick the UK out of the EU tables, as if they are in only the EEA.

[xenogear3]

This is a horrible idea.

Now many countries want to leave EU, and get a good deal.

[Deleted]

"The UK would be able to apply the “brake” for an initial seven years. But after the Brexit vote the EU declared the deal null and void." at the end of the story.

I don't think the deal counts.

[PC2]

No deal, get a better deal. So that only skilled people can get in, permanently not just for 7 years.

[Deleted]

"The UK would be able to apply the “brake” for an initial seven years. But after the Brexit vote the EU declared the deal null and void." at the end of the story.

I don't think the deal counts.

The previous deal doesn't count but that was for benefits not stopping migration completely like this new deal.

No deal, get a better deal. Only skilled people can get in permanently, not just for 7 years.

Impossible. It would break every EU treaty from the ground up. Freedom of movement is not called one of the Four Pillars of the single market (not even of just the EU) for nothing!

[PC2]

Impossible. It would break every EU treaty from the ground up. Freedom of movement is not called one of the Four Pillars of the single market (not even of just the EU) for nothing!

In that case, Brexit will continue.

[Deleted]

That's sad. If the EU had offered that emergency break to Cameron before the referendum as part of his EU renegotiation (as he requested), I suspect he would have won the vote and still be PM.

As it is, I don't think 7 years is enough to placate the 52% UK voters who voted to leave. They want control period, not control for 7 years.

[TrumpIsPresident]

That's sad. If the EU had offered that emergency break to Cameron before the referendum as part of his EU renegotiation (as he requested), I suspect he would have won the vote and still be PM.

As it is, I don't think 7 years is enough to placate the 52% UK voters who voted to leave. They want control period, not control for 7 years.

Yea and whats to say they write some loosely binding bill to stop the migration for 7 days and convince people to abandon the leave and then a few months after it say "oh we took another look and migration is back on".

Or worse they just stealth-migrate people like what happens in the US.