The four freedoms of the EU are quintessentially Liberal in their values. The free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, are four things that are integral to our diplomatic ties to Europe, our economic prosperity, and our staunchly internationalist principles. They are behind the core concept of the EU, the underlying beliefs of the EU, and the reason that many, even who voted Leave, acknowledge the economic benefits of the EU. They are also the things that I believe we should fight for, before all else.
As someone who lives in, campaigns in, and is quite attached to, my own Leave-voting county, I must admit that my feelings on the second referendum have been mixed throughout the campaign. Put simply, in many rural areas, however much good policy we have, thousands and thousands people who didn’t vote Lib Dem in 2015, and voted Leave, simply won’t consider it. I believe that a not insubstantial part of the reasoning for this is because of the second referendum promise.
That isn’t to say that in some areas the promise didn’t work. We did, after all, gain seats this election, in a wide range of areas. However, our victories were ultimately rather centred on Remain voting constituencies. Perhaps with the exception of Norman Lamb’s Norfolk North, our appeal to rural or soft brexiteering voters has been far less wide-ranging than one may expect. This is a shame. I think that there is certainly a way for us to appeal to voters on both sides of the referendum.
I would not oppose a second referendum. But I feel a better policy to fight for, and a better principle to campaign upon, is one which forges our own idea of what Brexit should look like; to me, that is a Brexit of the Four Freedoms. We need to be fighting for the principles behind Europe, and what makes our values so deep rooted in the continent that we call home. Those principles are no more clearly displayed than in the Four Freedoms. The free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour. They should be our priority, and what we stand on our soapboxes and are relentless in promoting the virtues of. If we fail to put forward that case, I fear that we will have missed a golden opportunity.
We will always be the party of Remain; what is essential is that we need to show voters that we can forge a future for Britain outside of the EU, as well as one within it.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
18 Comments
Contributor 2017, freedom of labour as is is history.
The day we wake up to the fact Labour woke up to it and thus did well, is the day we shall reveal on this and other things , we can win and win very well.
When a policy is based on principle you do not have to change your principles to change the policy.
You adapt to the reality of things.
Freedom of movement for the shall we call it , unskilled labour we need to come from other countries is now roundly disliked and discredited and shown up by many to be a way by corporations , of paying low wages to needy, admirable migrant workers.
It is used by the right of centre mainstream in the so called elite, to decry the work ethic of the UK working class male.
Whether guff or otherwise , we need to offer an approach that says , freedom in this country must be a positive freedom to have dignity and not a minimum wage culture of a race to the bottom.
The four freedoms can be three and a bit ! And better for it …
Agreed we should drop the Referendum but arguing for any sort of “Supersoft Brexit” will look dishonest. In any case various sorts of Softer Brexits will be on offer from all sides, we need something distinctive to cut through. Lets just argur for Brexit to be dropped.
Actually I can think of two better ideas than this `slow as a tortoise` approach to politics where even Corbyn has raced ahead of you.
1. Find out why people voted Leave and sort out policies that alleviate their concerns. Unfortunately you are not willing to walk through that painful intellectual journey to the other end. Preferred rights for British workers through reform of the JCP? Making sure that the responsibilities for mass migration aren’t always being borne by those left behind communtiies? How about clarity on a) what and who you think the economy is for and b) some big picture thinking on planning and honesty as to where the new housing is going to be build and c) answering what you think the ultimate population level should be in a relatively small island.
2. Find out why you have a psychological default or prejudice FOR open borders migration as a precursor to a successful economic model – something that the mass of people don’t share. Then intervene in that orthodoxy by working really hard at changing policy and psychology in a brave and imaginative way.
Most people in this country don’t want mass migration – they want a migration system that has their consent and shares their values. One that takes into account every single person particularly those seeking work and at the sharp end of the labour market.
BBC NEWS today
There has been a sharp drop in nurses registering to work in the UK since the EU referendum, figures suggest. Last July, 1,304 nurses from the EU joined the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, compared to 46 in April this year, a fall of 96%. The Health Foundation said the findings could not be more stark and said they should act as a “wake-up call”.
What that’s got to do with the Lorenzo’s ‘work ethic of the working class male’, I don’t know, but it sure as heck worries me. Any comment Jeremy Hunt ?
The Lib Dems don’t believe in freedom of movement for the 80% of the world which is not in the EU.
This seems to show a fanaticism with the EU rather than with the free movement principle.
The problem with James’s suggestion of preferred rights for British workers is that this contradicts the free market principles espoused by the EU. It would be grossly unfair and discrimination for an employer to favour any candidate based on nationality. Therefore the unrestricted migration of unskilled workers to the UK is part and parcel of EU membership.
The referendum result highlights the concern of the British population over the compromise of Parliamentary control of policy in favour of EU integration. Like the author, I would like the Liberal Democrats party to realise the reality of the UK leaving the EU, and work towards the negotiation of a liberal free-trade agreement with the EU to remove trade tariffs.
The free movement of labour can be enabled post-Brexit by a long overdue review of British immigration policy. If the UK is truly going to ‘go global’, then unfair advantage should not be given to EU migrants when American, Asian and African migrants could also contribute.
David Raw – we can push for automation to alleviate job shortage.
David,
2017 Lib Dem voters are much more in favour of immigration than 2017 voters of any other party. I would hazard a guess that, actually, we are favourable towards non-EU immigration!
During the election the Tories and Labour managed to keep Nelly under the carpet. One said the question of Nelly is best dealt with by us, the other didn’t mention Nelly much at all. We did mention Nelly but the public shouted us down, we have heard to much about Nelly, Nelly isn’t an issue they cried. Well Nelly has broken lose and she’s dancing, how she is dancing. Lets see going forward if the public and the two other parties can ignore the dancing elephant in the room. My guess is much as they will try they won’t be able to as Nelly dances all over their feet and other tender bits.
Thomas,
I think the Tories tried automation and look where that got us 😉
John,
You do know that in Switzerland with free movement you can
Mr Juncker backed a proposal that would allow Swiss residents to be offered all new jobs in the country first, saying: “This will be possible without a doubt. That the government wants to privilege Swiss employees on the job market is OK for me if it takes place in the framework of mutual recognition.”
source Independent. Just an aside the working class male (and woman) actually has a very good work ethic, problem is they tend to lack the skills required. A failure of our education system and a view that it’s cheaper to bring in skills than train our workers.
Frankie – It’s all a day late and a dollar short. The REMAIN campaign just wasn’t brave enough. Why, well we’ll never know. A really brave REMAIN campaign would have actually acknowledged stark reality – that the free movement we have in asymmetric. From there it would have talked about what could have been done within the EU. Switzerland is, of course, not in the EU – though it is rather brave of you to advocate a Swiss option there. I could live with that.
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/08/18/could-it-all-have-been-avoided-brexit-and-treaty-permitted-restrictions-on-movement-of-workers/
Problem though is that REMAIN didn’t say any of that – bravery after the fact is just cant.
@David Evershed – “The Lib Dems don’t believe in freedom of movement for the 80% of the world which is not in the EU.”
A common citizenship of the European Union –
an addition to normal national citizenship – was introduced decades ago by mutual agreement among the EU’s member states. Like it or not, it is perfectly reasonable for us to favour our fellow EU citizens over those from countries that we share no common citizenship with at all.
Our Brexiters make great claims about being “concerned about immigration”, yet they have little to say about us admitting over 150,000 non-EU citizens since the referendum nor about us having admitted more non-EU citizens than EU ones in every year of our ECs/EU membership. There is nothing preventing them from reducing non-EU immigration to (almost) zero tomorrow morning if they want but they will not. Instead they will ignore it and continue with their blind obsession about EU citizens, while simultaneously expecting the governments of those EU citizens to ignore Brexiters’ prejudice against their citizens and give Brexit Britain a wonderful trade deal that will duplicate large parts of the EU Treaties.
The Health Foundation said the findings could not be more stark and said they should act as a “wake-up call”.
Agree, it’s a wake-up call to the government that they need to invest in onshore education and training NOW! not two plus years down the road when they finally wake up to a skills shortage; remember we have circa 9M UK residents who are economically inactive.
jackie,
People move to the money always has been that way. Now after tanking the economy you won’t have to worry about migration, well at least migration too the UK as people will be migrating to where the money is. I suspect you have started to see that as the Eastern Europeans you are so worried about seem to be leaving faster than they are coming and that will get worse. Problem is Jackie with an economy addicted to cheap labour where o where can they import migrants from?
A lot of valid comments here, but a few not-so-valid. Free movement of people is a polite way of saying unlimited immigration. It’s all very well to say “A common citizenship of the European Union – an addition to normal national citizenship – was introduced decades ago by mutual agreement among the EU’s member states” but it ignore the fact that this was the political leadership agreeing amongst themselves; the people did not agree to this. More than anything this is what lost the Referendum for Remain. Do Liberal Democrats genuinely want to see the population of the UK soar by a further 20 million plus (overwhelmingly in England of course)? If you are under 40 you will see this happening over the next few decades and you will have to live with the consequences. Get real – if the full long-term consequences of current immigration policies were admitted to and if we campaigned on this ticket it would be electoral suicide.
John Hefford
” I would like the Liberal Democrats party to realise the reality of the UK leaving the EU, and work towards the negotiation of a liberal free-trade agreement with the EU to remove trade tariffs.”
This isn’t the issue. The issue is non-tariff barriers. Businesses are waking up gradually to the realisation that leaving the single market and the customs union will burgeon their trade with vast quantities of red tape. How ironic, when one of the arguments the Leave campaign used last year was that we are going to get away from red tape and bureaucrats.
“The free movement of labour can be enabled post-Brexit by a long overdue review of British immigration policy. If the UK is truly going to ‘go global’, then unfair advantage should not be given to EU migrants when American, Asian and African migrants could also contribute.”
And yet more Non-EU migrants came here last year than EU migrants. Another irony. Don’t worry though. This country is rapidly gaining a reputation for being unfriendly to European nationals and as the economy slows, less will come anyway. So how exactly are we going to fill all those nursing and carers posts? Perhaps salaries needs to go up enormously before British people will even consider those professions as a career.
And who is going to pay for that? More Brexit-reality…
Louise,
In any form of international trade, there will be a certain level of bureaucracy and paperwork. It will be up to the detailed negotiations of a free-trade agreement to minimise that bureaucracy.
However, on the subject of the falling rate of EU applicants to the NHS: Exploitation of migrant labour is an unacceptable solution to filling vacant positions for nurses and carers, and removing the 1% cap on public sector pay-rises will only be a start to raising the salaries of NHS staff to the level that they deserve. I don’t see raising salaries as a way route for British people to “even consider those professions as a career”, I see raising salaries as a route to rewarding those who do great work in the NHS, irrespective of their nationality.