EU Likely to Reject UK’s Compromise on Under-30s Migration Scheme
Recent sources suggest that the European Union (EU) is poised to dismiss a proposed UK compromise regarding a capped migration scheme for individuals under 30. This initiative is part of the ongoing Brexit adjustments being formulated in Whitehall. According to The i Paper, the EU is inclined to advocate for a broader youth mobility agreement rather than a restrictive quota system.
The British government is considering various proposals to reconcile its stance with EU demands for more accessible migration for under-30s. These proposals include imposing a cap on the number of Europeans permitted to enter the UK and vice versa, along with a limited duration of two years. Additionally, the proposals entail stringent regulations surrounding access to the National Health Service (NHS) and welfare benefits.
This approach is considerably narrower than the EU’s initial offer, which allowed all 18-30-year-olds to travel between the UK and EU without a visa for a duration of up to four years. The EU has since indicated a willingness to negotiate on the duration allowed for under-30s to move under the new scheme, even suggesting a rebranding to a “youth experience scheme.”
In light of these developments, the UK has started to outline potential “landing zones” for a possible agreement. This comes after tensions within the Cabinet, where some ministers have argued that establishing a youth mobility scheme is crucial for unlocking broader trade agreements as part of Sir Keir Starmer’s vision for a Brexit reset.
To align this scheme with the government’s goal of reducing net migration and to mitigate objections from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, officials are exploring the idea of implementing a cap. As previously reported by The i Paper, the proposed quota might allow around 70,000 EU nationals to enter the UK and vice versa, which would represent a smaller proportion of the population compared to Australia’s immigration scheme.
The plan also includes stipulations requiring EU nationals to pay international tuition fees and the NHS surcharge applicable to immigrants while prohibiting them from accessing benefits. Negotiations with Brussels are expected to face challenges, particularly regarding the proposed cap and health surcharge fees.
A European diplomatic source described the UK’s suggestions as a “helpful starting point for negotiations,” while also emphasizing that it falls short of the desired outcome from the EU’s perspective. According to The i Paper, the British proposal is still in its nascent stages and has yet to receive unanimous approval across the Cabinet.
Insiders in Whitehall have expressed skepticism about the likelihood of reaching an agreement in the near future. They believe that the upcoming UK-EU summit on May 19 may serve as a platform for discussing future cooperation on youth exchanges rather than as a definitive moment for finalizing a deal.
In the meantime, Brexiteers have criticized any notion that the UK is prepared to make concessions on aligning with EU regulations regarding food, plant, and animal welfare to facilitate smoother cross-border trade. There are also concerns about harmonizing carbon emissions trading and accepting rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Former Conservative Brexit negotiator Lord Frost voiced his discontent, stating, “We knew it was coming, but now it seems confirmed: Britain will revert to alignment with EU food standards and climate change regulations while accepting ECJ jurisdiction. Shame on you, Keir Starmer, and [EU Relations Minister] Nick Thomas-Symonds for compromising this country’s self-governance to a foreign court.”
A government spokesperson responded, stating, “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement. We are committed to resetting our relationship with the EU to enhance the security, safety, and prosperity of the British populace. While we will consider sensible proposals, we have made it clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union, or the single market.”
