The rest of Europe has, predictably, reacted negatively to the suggestion that the UK should be able to impose some kind of cap on free movement while remaining in the EU. At first glance, it does sound as if David Cameron wants the UK to stay a member of the European club without subscribing to one of its founding rules.
But there’s actually a very good argument for why the UK should be treated differently. As I say in my column this week, Britain is the one major EU economy that is never going to join the euro. This makes Britain a special case. If there is no limit on the number of EU migrants who can move here, the UK – with its different business cycle – is going to become the main safety valve for the Eurozone when it goes into recession.
This is already beginning to happen. In 2006, before the Eurozone crisis took hold, only 9,654 Spaniards received UK National Insurance Numbers. In 2013, this number jumped to 51,729. You can see the same trend in terms of immigration from Portugal, with 9,696 National Insurance numbers issued in 2006 and 30,121 in 2013; and from Italy, with 11,060 in 2006 and 44,113 in 2013. This mean that last year, three Eurozone economies alone sent more than 120,000 immigrants to Britain – making a mockery of Cameron’s aim to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.
This trend is only going to become more pronounced as the Eurozone economies converge, as they must if their currency union is to survive. So, there’s a legitimate case for the UK having some kind of ability to limit Eurozone immigration. One possibility is a cap that would come into effect if the Eurozone went into recession, or if unemployment there exceeded a certain level.
Whether the rest of the EU accepts this argument is another matter entirely. However, it is looking increasingly likely that Britain’s EU membership will hinge on whether or not the Eurozone is prepared to do so.
Comments