Politics
A decade after the United Kingdom’s formal withdrawal from the European Union, a growing consensus has emerged among British political and economic circles that the decision to leave the bloc
A decade after the United Kingdom’s formal withdrawal from the European Union, a growing consensus has emerged among British political and economic circles that the decision to leave the bloc — intended to secure full control over the country’s borders and curb immigration — has caused significant economic and administrative damage rather than delivering the promised benefits. Recent statements by British Prime Minister Andy Burnham have brought official recognition to the argument that, over the past ten years, Britain has lost the effective control over its borders that it enjoyed as a member of the European Union.
The main reason behind this U-turn is the fundamental disruption of the immigration system. Before Brexit, labour migration from the European Union to Britain was largely temporary or seasonal, with workers returning to their home countries after completing their jobs. This pattern was often described as a “revolving door.” However, after Brexit restricted the arrival of European workers, a new visa system was introduced to support the British economy. As a result, millions of people from India, Nigeria and other non-European regions began settling in Britain on a long-term basis, often bringing their families with them. Net migration consequently reached a record high of 944,000 by March 2023.
At the same time, a serious crisis involving small boats crossing the English Channel developed. After leaving the European Union, Britain lost access to the historical Dublin arrangements for returning migrants, under which people entering the country irregularly could, under certain conditions, be sent back to France or other European countries. In addition, the British economy has faced trade barriers, administrative paperwork and severe labour shortages in the National Health Service (NHS), the hotel industry, agriculture and logistics. These pressures have ultimately forced London to reconsider its relationship with Brussels.
If an agreement restoring free movement between Britain and the European Union were introduced, it could fundamentally change the rights of citizens in both regions concerning employment, travel and legal residence. Such an arrangement could replace the current restrictive points-based immigration system with a framework based on reciprocal rights associated with the European single market.
The strict 90-day limit on stays in the European Schengen Area would be lifted for British citizens. Holders of British passports would be able to live, study and work in all 27 EU member states without needing advance visas, employer sponsorship or electronic travel authorizations. In addition, British citizens would regain access to reciprocal healthcare arrangements across Europe through the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC). They would also benefit from legal provisions allowing state pension entitlements accumulated while working abroad to be coordinated across participating countries.
On the other hand, the restrictions imposed on EU citizens entering Britain after Brexit would be removed. European workers would no longer have to meet the substantial annual salary threshold of £38,700 required under the Skilled Worker visa route, nor would they have to pay thousands of pounds in visa fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge. EU citizens would be able to travel directly to Britain to look for employment and begin working without the existing immigration barriers.
A common misconception is that free movement gives every foreign national an unrestricted right to remain in another country for life. In reality, under EU rules, anyone staying for more than three months must generally be employed, self-employed, enrolled in formal education, or financially self-sufficient and covered by comprehensive health insurance, subject to the applicable legal conditions.
Because restoring full free movement is a complex and lengthy process, work is reportedly progressing rapidly on a reciprocal Youth Mobility Scheme as an initial transitional measure. Under the proposal put forward by the European Commission, British and European young people aged 18 to 30 would be offered a simplified visa arrangement allowing them to travel, study and work in each other’s countries.
Under the scheme, young people would be permitted to live in the other country for two to three years to gain experience without facing high salary thresholds or stringent employer-sponsorship requirements. The initiative could provide immediate relief to British universities, scientific and research institutions, and young workers. It could also help Britain’s hospitality and services sectors recruit skilled young employees at a time of labour shortages. The proposal is being viewed as a first concrete step towards a broader economic and labour agreement in the future.
Despite the potential economic and immigration benefits, an immediate return to the European Union’s single market and free movement would not be straightforward. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has made clear that he would not impose such a decision without seeking the public’s direct opinion. This suggests that a new public referendum would be necessary before free movement could be restored.
Furthermore, the red lines set out in the Labour Party’s election manifesto do not permit a major change of this kind during the current parliamentary term. As a result, formal legislation to restore full free movement may not take shape until after the 2029 general election. Experts believe that during this transitional period, Britain will gradually move closer to Europe through sector-specific agreements, youth mobility arrangements and mutual security protocols. The aim would be to help the British economy overcome the effects of isolation after 2026 and reintegrate it into the global mainstream.
