It’s not bonkers to talk to the EU about restoring freedom of movement

On hearing that Andy Burnham has proposed a conversation about some sort of return to the European Union’s freedom of movement rules, some readers may have wondered whether the Prime Minister has gone stark raving bonkers. After all, freedom of movement – and Labour’s handling of it – explains much of British politics today. Freedom of movement is the reason we got Brexit. It is the foundation stone of a Reform UK party that represents the biggest change in the British party system since the creation of the Labour Party itself.

Surely, then, the PM is crackers to even talk about reopening this particular box of political scorpions? In fact, Burnham’s talk of an “honest discussion” about free movement is deserving of attention, even if – or perhaps because – such a candid debate would be uncomfortable for just about everyone in politics. And some of us in the media too, but I’ll come back to that. First, the original sin. In 2004, Tony Blair decided that, alone among Western EU members, Britain would open its borders to citizens of the eight “accession” states, new members from Eastern Europe.

Cue Polish plumbers, Romanian vegetable pickers, and the politics of immigration. That decision transformed Ukip from a fringe element to a decisive force. By channelling public unease about European immigration, Ukip panicked David Cameron into calling the 2016 referendum that ended free movement and our EU membership. We live in a political world – fractured, uncertain, sceptical – that was created by that decision on free movement. Here, a bit of personal honesty is in order.

I got this one wrong. In the pages of this paper in the 2010s, I often wrote about the economic merits of European immigration, defending that 2004 decision. In so doing I, like many others in my centrist tribe, did not take seriously enough the concerns raised by Ukip and others about the social aspects of immigration and more importantly about the feeling among many voters that this was a policy they didn’t vote for and weren’t consulted on.

The eventual vote to Leave was, in some ways, a justified rebuke to people like me for failing to listen properly to our fellow countrymen and women. That’s part of the reason that I always rejected the various “people’s vote” schemes to overturn Brexit. We lost because we didn’t listen. That was bad enough. Failing to listen to the referendum result would have been unforgivable. That’s my part of the “honest discussion” about free movement, candour that some people on the Remain side of the referendum still haven’t mustered.

Some prefer to cling to comforting conspiracy theories to explain their – our – failure. Burnham’s flirtation earlier this month with the Remainer fairytale of Russian interference in the vote was not to his credit. And while we’re pondering the Prime Minister’s “honest discussion” over Europe, it should surely include an admission that his European positioning – like his talk of electoral reform – is partly about opening the door to a progressive alliance with the Liberal Democrats after the next election.

But what about some honesty from those on the other side of this dividing line? Burnham’s words on free movement summon up two fascinating but sometimes contradictory narratives that have become popular on the Right of British politics. The first is that the country is in danger of being overrun with immigrants, that we are a nation under assault from incoming foreigners desperate to invade these shores and transform our culture and society for the worse.

The second is that Britain is broken, an economic wreck sliding into ruin thanks to high taxes, inflation and failing infrastructure. Without commenting on the merits of either assertion – though you can likely guess my view – I have to ask: surely both things can’t be true at the same time? Put another way: If Britain really is a broken basket-case, why would anyone clamour to come here? This is why Burnham’s call on free movement could and should start an overdue conversation about Britain’s relative wealth and its position in the world .

Back in 2004, moving to the UK offered serious economic gains. Polish GDP per capita, adjusted for differences in purchasing power, was around 40 per cent of Britain’s. But 22 years on, the economic balance has tipped. Polish wealth is approaching 90 per cent of Britain’s . During two decades of our poor productivity growth and stagnant living standards, most European nations have closed the economic gap with Britain. Brexit hasn’t helped us here; we’re still paying the economic price for Cameron’s shameful abdication of responsibility in the post-referendum period.

Yes, some EU members remain poorer, but they already have access via freedom of movement to other economies: why should Romanians or Moldovans choose Britain over, say, Germany? The idea that reopening freedom of movement would repeat the post-2004 waves of European immigration is for the birds. An honest critique of Burnham’s words would accept that. It would also pay attention to the reality of European conversations about Britain and free movement, and what the EU side of this debate actually wants from Britain.

It’s not a deal that would allow large numbers of EU nationals to come to the UK for low-wage jobs that frankly they can get more easily and profitably elsewhere. Instead, the EU is seeking the chance for younger Europeans to come to Britain for short spells early in their careers, not least to experience Britain’s universities . Tellingly, Eastern European members aren’t making the running here: it is Germany, still wealthier than us, that is driving the argument for freer movement of people between Britain and the EU.

That should lead to an honest evaluation of our real economic strengths. We have a services sector that remains the envy of Europe. Our financial services sector is still, just about, world-leading. And our universities, generally either neglected or derided by our politicians, are social and economic jewels in our crown. The Remain-voting progressive centre failed for years to accept valid public concerns about the social impact of immigration and the democratic basis for it, and still struggles to do so.

The Leave-voting Right failed to offer an accurate estimation of our economic weaknesses and strengths, and still struggles to do so. An honest discussion of free movement? If only.