By Dave Levy

A furore has broken out over the issue of reciprocally agreeing with the EU that young people can travel freely between and within the EU to work, live and love as they choose. The Financial Times and Steve Peers on X, reported that the EU Commission has sent a request to the Council for a mandate to negotiate a “youth mobility” scheme to allow British and EU under 30s to freely travel, work and study in each other’s countries.

Cynics suggest this is to hold the Union’s position together as the UK Government has already opened or attempted to open bi-lateral talks with several but not all member states, However, the Commission’s initiative has produced a negative public statement from Labour – and later by the Government, which highlights itsdisrespectful approach to British and European youth’s interests.

The BBC reported: “No 10 has rejected the offer, stating ‘free movement within the EU was ended’. The UK already runs schemes with some non-EU countries to allow people to come to the UK for up to two years.”

For the Tories, this is not about principle. They seem quite happy to pick and choose which countries’ nationals they’ll let in. Another tripping point for the Tories is that Sweden has refused because it wants to act in solidarity with allthe member states and the Commission, if it gets a mandate, will have conditions on visa charges and the NHS surcharge – they will also not permit the UK to discriminate against any member state.

On the other hand, Labour really seem to be taking a foolishly hard line. I think that agreeing this would make their plan to negotiate a new co-operation agreement easier since their goal seems to be to bargain the UK’s defence capability in exchange for opt-outs from the single market. Labour proposes to make Brexit work: they say in their Programme:

“We will seek to secure a veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as well as improving scientific collaboration through Horizon. We will also push for an EU visa waiver for UK touring artists and the reduction of other administrative burdens.”

Elsewhere they say: “We will also improve links between our students and universities.”

That’s as close as they get to rejoining Erasmus+, the University student exchange scheme, that the UK had been part of since its foundation in 1987, nearly 40 years ago.

Stella Creasy of the Labour Movement for Europe, welcomed the proposal and the scheme.

The Tory and Labour rejection suggest to me that it’s now dead. That may be what the Commission was trying to achieve, to stop the UK cherry-picking, to stop us levying the NHS fee and high unreasonable visa fees, although the Commission may not give up. The bad news is that it has enabled those that oppose freedom of movement to reinforce their arguments.

Labour’s five-point plan is not what the economy needs. While the standards agreements will make some trade easier, and ease many of the problems on the borders of Northern Ireland, they do not address other sectors of the economy including most obviously medicinal supplies. Their position on the very limited freedom of movement they propose is unhelpful for most of us; the public good of creative industry exports is questionable, and the EU will have great difficulty in signing up to reciprocal professional standards recognition because they don’t themselves have a single market agreement on these issues. I’d also like to remind the Labour front bench that European Lawyers’ standards are not governed by the EU treaties.

Let’s remember that Starmer and even Sunak are looking to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. From what can be observed in the US, supply side reform, even “modern supply side” is not going to do it and Labour’s focus on construction, batteries and windfarms is flawed or too late.

I believe that Labour are seeking to use enhanced security co-operation to further their cakeist approach to the single market. The FT article on Lammy’s proposal that the UK join the EU’s foreign affairs council makes it clear that Labour propose using the UK’s military budget and capability as a negotiating tool for single market opt-outs. This will not be easy and everyone in the UK is ignoring the fact  that justice, that is internal security co-operation, requires a common basic law.

Martin Kettle’s Guardian article, “Starmer can’t dodge the Europe question for ever. In office, the economy will answer it for him” reckons that it will be Reeves who will break first, because of the need to generate economic growth. I don’t agree. She’s remarkably stubborn and well trained by the high priests of Quantitative Monetary Theory in the Bank and Treasury.

But it’s not just the economy and immigration which may drive change in Labour’s policy position. David Lammy in a number of speeches has presaged the need for a new European security architecture and the UK won’t be allowed to join unless it accepts the EU’s court and jurisdiction over the “justice pillar” and Charter of Fundamental Rights.

On youth mobility, it’s a shocking opportunity missed and while I am not surprised at the Government’s reaction; I am bitterly disappointed in Labour’s.

Dave Levy is a member of Lewisham North Labour Party and Branch President of the GMB’s Central London General Branch and the Another Europe National Committee. H e writes here in a personal capacity. He blogs here.

Image: EU flag. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eu-Flag.jpg. Author: Irinawave, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.