Last week, the nation celebrated VE day. VE stands for Victory in Europe, celebrating the formal acceptance by the Allies of World War II of Nazi Germany's absolute surrender of its armed forces on Tuesday, 8 May 1945, marking the end of World War II in Europe. The Allies comprised of many countries:
This list illustrates that, despite what some in the Conservative government would have us believe, Britain did not win the war alone.
The recent resurgence of British exceptionalism, which drove the anti-EU rhetoric and ultimately led to the 2016 EU Referendum, has been decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more in this country than any other in Europe. However, it appears that the United Kingdom will plow ahead with Brexit. And one of the main components of leaving the EU is ending freedom of movement.
The EU is built upon four fundamental freedoms:
These freedoms are articulated in the EU's founding document, the Treaty of Rome under Article 3 (abbreviated by the author):
"The activities of the Community shall include . . . the elimination, as between the Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods . . .; the abolition, as between the Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services, and capital."
Freedom of movement entitles EU citizens to:
Healthcare and access to public funds can also be covered; however, individual nations can decide on the extent of these benefits.
It is this latter point which in part led the UK down the path of leaving the EU. And it had nothing to do with migration – rather, a crucial error of judgment by the Labour government in 2004.
Despite protests to the contrary, evidence shows that one third (33 percent) of Leave voters said the main reason for their decision to exit the EU was because it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." To understand why, we must go back to 2004 and decisions made by the then Labour government, led by Tony Blair.
In 2004, "Cool Britannia " was booming and full of positivity. The shock of 9/11 had worn off and the bombings on the London transport network were a year in the future. The economy was riding high on borrowed funds; with no inclination that in four years the good times would end abruptly with the collapse of Lehman Brothers far away in New York.
That year, the EU welcomed ten new member states – Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Before this, EU migration to Britain was on par with levels experienced in the other member States. The poorest nations, Greece, Spain, and Portugal benefiting from generous EU infrastructure funding, did not see large numbers of young people leaving their shores for Britain.
This all changed. The UK was only one of three countries (including Ireland and Sweden), which did not impose restrictions on migrants from the new Member States. The reason for this decision was discussed in an in-depth article by Dr. Erica Consterdine, Research Fellow at the Politics Department and the Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex:
"So why did the Labour government take such a politically risky decision back in 2004? For a decision that had such large ramifications both politically and on Britain's population, there was a surprising lack of debate. There were two reasons for this. First, the government had assumed that other member states would open their labour markets and so diffuse migration flows. Second, the decision was perceived and framed among the British political elite as a geopolitical matter rather than one focused on immigration.
While Britain confirmed the decision in late 2002, most other member states did not make the decision until early 2004. The UK economy was booming at this time, leading to demand workers. Conversely, other states such as Germany were suffering from economic stagnation and high levels of unemployment.
In Germany, Austria, France, and Italy, months of public debate led to the imposition of transitional controls, largely because of fears over job displacement, and in turn pressure from trade unions. Despite the early rhetoric of embracing free movement from these "old states", at the eleventh hour, 12 out of 15 of them imposed restrictions to varying degrees, with Germany and Austria imposing the maximum seven-year period. This meant that citizens of the new member states had to wait until 2011 until they could freely work in Germany and Austria.
Given the complexity of migration flows, it's not possible to say definitively whether more people migrated to the UK from the A8 countries than would have done had more EU member states opened their labour markets in 2004, but this wouldn't be an unfair assumption."
Interestingly, the Coronavirus pandemic may have led to a greater appreciation of EU migrants, especially given their contribution to essential services such as healthcare, food manufacturing, care homes, and supermarkets. They are essentially the glue holding the country together at this time.
To this end, the UK parliament has shelved the controversial Immigration Bill designed to end freedom of movement when the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December 2020. There has been no date for Bill’s reintroduction to the House of Commons for its second reading.
Under the Bill, EU migrants will be subject to the same immigration controls as those from non-EU/EEA nations. However, the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the timeline for negotiation talks regarding an EU-UK trading relationship into chaos and shown how highly dependent the country is on EU migrants.
So will freedom of movement end come December? The answer is no one knows. But it has become clear that such a move cannot be taken as lightly as some politicians in the past may have thought.
It's a shame that you dont have an 'Excellent' star rating on here, as my experience with Reiss Edwards is nothing short of an excellent rating. They handled my application for an Indefinite Leave to remain in April 2014 and did my husband's one very recently including my daughter. Every time i have approached them, they have continued to treat me with courtesy, respect and patience. Amar was indeed a very thorough and professional gentleman. He is very knowledgeable, corporative and engaging. He responded to my emails, calls and enquiries promptly. He was always reassuring. I could not have asked for a better Immigration service. I would recommend them over and over again for anyone looking for an immigration advice. They gave me a free immigration advice when i called them, and the quality of the advice was something other charge thousands for. If you need a particular, name, Amar would be it. He exemplifies, for me, the true, professional gentleman. He is a valuable asset to Reiss Edwards.
I am glad that i instructed Reiss Edwards on my visa matter. It started with a 20 minutes free immigration advice. I met with Amar to discuss my ILR refusal. He gave me a great deal of quality advice and decided to take on my messy case. I had doubts on the merits of my case by he was relatively convinced he could win it. That made me quite secure. To be honest, things did not start as quick as I would have wanted, but they kept on communicating the process and state of things to me.A big thank you to Verusha and Foram. They were also very helpful. Brilliant and informative. Their fee was fair and reasonable, especially if you compare them to other law firms and immigration law firms in London; some of whom even told me that i would not be able to get an indefinte leave to remain in this country. The process was long but was worth it. In the end, a big thank you to Reiss Edwards.
Investing over 2 million pounds is defintely not a routine decision. We had to make sure that the Tier 1 investor immigration lawyers that we'd be picking has to be one of the best within the Tier 1 investor category. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they were able to get us not only the Tier 1 investor visa but also suggested profitable investment portfolios in addition to what we already had in mind.
TI have just had British Citizenship application approved. Prior to making the application, i was not sure which law firm i should hire to facilitate the paperwork. After a few hours of research, i decided to go with Reiss Edwards and i must confess that i wasnt disappointed. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards handled my case well and they really knew what they were doing. They were fully aware of what documents I needed and it was easy for them to tell if my case was going to be easy or not. At the end of the day, I have not received my British citizenship within 3 months. If anyone is looking for a good immigration lawyer to handle thier case, contact Reiss Edwards.
My wife's spouse visa extension application was refused by the Home Office and they gave her 14 days to leave the country. We contacted Reiss Edwards and they said "OK don't worry we will sort this out". They put together the list of documents for me to obtain and they prepared a bundle which was as thick as the printer it came out from.We followed everything they asked us to do and in the end we won our appeal and got our spouse visa. We can't recommend them enough and we have promised ourselves never to make any more UK visa applications without them.
The team of lawyers at Reiss Edwards are very professional and friendly people. Their experience in and around UK immigration law is quite extensive; be sure that you application is in safe and competent hands. My immigration matter was an indefinite leave to remain application based on Tier 1 on a self-employment basis. The immigration lawyers at Reiss Edwards made sure that the application was perfect and ready to be accepted. I got a positive decision and I recommend them highly for anyone who needs a UK immigration help.
I contacted Reiss Edwards to help me with my wife's UK settlement visa. They acted with utmost professionalism throughout the entire application. I spoke with Joe Dinh, he is an immigration solicitor and he is one of the best solicitors out there. He ensured that there was little to no room for error. At some point I thought he was over cautious. He remained calmed and continued to assure us on our immigration matter. Most people in his position would have panicked but he was calmed and continued to assure us. We received out positive outcome very quickly.
I have been using Reiss Edwards for three years now for my family's immigration application. Both for my initial application and extension. They are really affordable. The team of solicitors at this firm are probably one of the most efficient and economical in terms of cost. They offered free advice over the phone and spent good time with us before inviting us for consultation.
Reiss Edwards is a top notch immigration service company. The way they handled our documentation and also the list of documents they sent was efficient and top quality. They helped us professionally throughout the process. We are very happy with the immigration advice we received from the team. We highly recommend them.
I used Reiss Edwards immigration lawyers to assist with my immigration matter and that of my family. It was an EX1 application. They dealt with the matter properly and even when complications were coming up from the Home Office, they helped resolve the issue properly. They are very professional and are very popular in London. I am happy to have worked with them.
This is the only firm that i spoke with that didn't ask for money before listening to me, will be using them again.
I used Reiss Edwards for my Tier 2 visa application and it was successful. The team was ever present and happy to answer my question. The caseworker that dealing with my case went on holiday yet by case did not suffer one bit. Another lawyer stepped and took over the case without any hassle.
My Tier 1 Investor Visa was dealt with quickly and without issue. Would recommend Reiss Edwards as an Immigration law firm in London. Thank you to the team.
530 ReviewsREAD ALL REVIEWS