Freedom of Movement isn’t the problem – The problem is in the way the UK fails use the available controls

Here’s an important corrective to some of the misinformation about “Freedom of Movement” within the EU. A summary is that controls are available, but the UK government has never implemented them.

I maintain that freedom of movement is one of the benefits of EU membership, not one of the costs. Why are we throwing away so much to deal with a non-existent problem?

This also explains why the David Cameron’s bluster didn’t persuade anyone in the EU to jump through hoops on his behalf. We could have reduced migration ourselves within existing regulations, but decided not to, no doubt because of the positive economic benefits.


Myth Buster – Debunking the horror stories surrounding the EU Freedom of Movement directive. 

 Currently Theresa May has made stopping FoM a red-line issue even at the expense of the UK’s membership of the Single Market.


 One of the four freedoms enjoyed by EU citizens is the free movement of workers. This includes the rights of movement and residence for workers, the rights of entry and residence for family members, and the right to work in another Member State and be treated on an equal footing with nationals of that Member State. Restrictions apply in some countries for citizens of Member States that have recently acceded to the EU.

There appears to be 4 major arguments in favour of stopping EU migrants exercising this freedom to come and work in the UK. It is my intention to debunk each of these arguments as plainly false.

Claim 1 – “Inability…

View original post 1,485 more words

4 Responses to “Freedom of Movement isn’t the problem – The problem is in the way the UK fails use the available controls”

  1. telescoper Says:

    I don’t think much will change, as the intention is for a very simple Act of Parliament to be tabled, which will almost certainly pass the Commons. Since leaving the Single Market is a direct violation of the Conservative’s General Election manifesto, the Lords would be justified in voting against it, but I doubt they will.

    The judgement does establish a limit on the executive’s ability to circumvent Parliament, however, which may be good for the future.

    Above all, however, the Supreme Court ruling has established – for those who were in any doubt previously – that the UK government would have acted unlawfully if it had not been stopped. It will probably do this again.

    • telescoper Says:

      I think there is a strong possibility that the government will try to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny if and when the so-called Great Repeal Act is passed, to remove legal protections and human rights accrued by virtue of EU membership.

    • telescoper Says:

      It will have to go through Parliament, but that Act will only incorporate all EU law into UK law. The government will then repeal what it doesn’t like, bit by bit. It clearly intended to do this without Parliamentary scrutiny, but now will find that difficult.

    • telescoper Says:

      Not now the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court’s original judgment that rights cannot be removed by Royal Prerogative, but must involve an Act of Parliament.

      I think this is why the government appealed the High Court judgment rather than just going along with it. It won’t affect Article 50, but will slow down their power grab later on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: