Andy Burnham wants to deepen the UK’s ties with the EU. (Image: Getty)
Britain cannot rejoin the European Union without having freedom of movement between the UK and the EU, Brussels’ former chief Brexit negotiator has warned. Michel Barnier warned the UK there will be “no cherry picking” for the UK.
When asked on BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether Britain could rejoin the single market without having unlimited immigration backwards and forwards, Michel Barnier said: “There is no cherry picking. There will be no possibility to have one freedom and not the other.
“The four freedoms (of goods, movement of people, services and capital) are clearly the four conditions to be inside the single market.”
He said there would be no fee simply to rejoin, but added: “There will be the usual contribution of any member state to the European budget.”
Mr Barnier said he thinks the £5 billion annual rebate Margaret Thatcher had negotiated on paying into the EU’s central budget would be “off the table” in any future agreement.
He said: “We are speaking of a new situation, and it cannot be exactly as the past situation before Brexit.
The Prime Minister is due to sign a series of deals with the EU on November 20 in Brussels.
They will be focused on bringing down post-Brexit trade barriers on food and farming, as well as working more closely on emissions trading, and making it easier for young people from the UK to work, live and study in Europe and vice versa.
But he has suggested he wants to deepen ties with Europe further in the aftermath of the summit.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has acknowledged there will be “trade-offs” for Britain as it seeks to get closer to the EU again.
She was asked by Ms Kuenssberg whether it was true there would be a 150,000 cap on the number of Europeans who could come to Britain under a youth mobility scheme, and whether this would be acceptable to her constituents.
Mrs Nandy, who represents the leave-voting Wigan constituency, said: “Well, we’ll have those conversations with our European counterparts, but we’ll also have those conversations too with the British people, because it is right to say that there are costs as well as benefits to a closer relationship with the European Union.
“There are trade-offs to be made, and we can’t cut people out of that conversation.”
Ms Nandy also suggested she is not in favour of rejoining the trade bloc, telling the BBC: “The only thing that I think the British people are absolutely united on right now is that we left the European Union a decade ago with the promise of a close Brexit deal and the promise of benefits from that deal, and most of those have not been realised.
“It’s not working for people across this country, and we’ve got to do better.”
Michel Barnier Reveals Four Conditions for the UK to Rejoin the EU – Including a £5bn Financial Bombshell
The possibility of the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union has returned to the centre of British political debate. Nearly six years after Brexit officially took effect, questions about the economic and political consequences of leaving the bloc remain highly controversial. As the UK faces economic challenges, trade barriers and changing international relationships, some political leaders are beginning to reconsider whether closer integration with Europe could benefit the country. However, Michel Barnier, the European Union’s former chief Brexit negotiator, has made it clear that Britain cannot simply return to the EU while choosing only the advantages it wants. His comments highlight four fundamental conditions associated with the European single market, as well as the potentially significant financial cost of losing the UK’s former budget rebate, worth approximately £5 billion annually.
First of all, it is important to understand the four fundamental freedoms that form the basis of the European single market. These principles allow the free movement of goods, services, capital and people between participating countries. According to Barnier, these freedoms are interconnected and cannot be separated according to the preferences of an individual country. Britain would therefore have to accept all four principles if it wanted to regain full access to the single market.
The first condition concerns the free movement of goods. Before Brexit, British businesses could trade with European partners under common market rules, generally without the customs barriers that now complicate some transactions. Leaving the EU introduced additional procedures, paperwork and regulatory requirements for many companies. These changes have increased administrative costs and created difficulties for businesses involved in international trade.
Rejoining the single market could help reduce these obstacles. British manufacturers, agricultural producers and retailers might benefit from simpler arrangements when selling products to European customers. More efficient trade could improve business competitiveness, support employment and potentially reduce certain costs for consumers. However, these benefits would depend on the precise terms of any future agreement.
The second condition is the free movement of services. This principle is particularly important for Britain because services account for a substantial proportion of its economy. Financial services, professional consulting, education, tourism and digital industries all depend on international relationships.
Closer integration with the EU could make it easier for British service providers to operate across European markets. For example, financial institutions, consulting companies and professional organisations could benefit from greater regulatory cooperation and improved market access. Universities and educational institutions might also find it easier to develop international partnerships.
Nevertheless, greater access would require Britain to follow relevant European regulations and standards. This could limit the government’s ability to introduce completely different regulatory arrangements in certain sectors. The central question would be whether the economic benefits of closer integration justified the associated obligations.
The third condition involves the free movement of capital. This principle allows money and investment to move more freely between countries within the single market. It supports international business development, financial transactions and cross-border investment.
For Britain, access to a larger integrated European market could encourage foreign investment and strengthen economic relationships with European partners. British companies might find it easier to attract investment, while European businesses could have greater opportunities to expand their activities in the UK. Increased investment could contribute to economic growth, technological innovation and job creation.
However, financial integration also requires appropriate regulations to prevent money laundering, financial misconduct and other economic risks. Britain would need to establish effective cooperation with European regulatory institutions while maintaining the stability of its own financial system.
The fourth and politically most controversial condition is the free movement of people. This principle gives EU citizens the right to live, work and move between member states under the relevant European rules. It was one of the most important issues during the 2016 Brexit referendum, when immigration and national sovereignty became central themes in the political debate.
Barnier has emphasised that Britain cannot obtain the economic advantages of the single market while refusing to accept free movement. This presents a significant challenge for British politicians, particularly those who promised voters that Brexit would restore greater national control over immigration.
Supporters of closer European integration argue that free movement could help British businesses address labour shortages, attract skilled workers and create more opportunities for young people. British citizens could also benefit from greater freedom to study, work and establish businesses in European countries.
On the other hand, critics may be concerned about pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure. They may also argue that immigration policy should remain under the direct control of the British government. These competing perspectives demonstrate why free movement remains such a sensitive political issue.
Beyond the four freedoms, the financial implications of rejoining the EU represent another major obstacle. One particularly important issue is the British budget rebate, originally negotiated by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984. This arrangement significantly reduced the UK’s net financial contribution to the European budget.
The rebate was worth approximately £5.2 billion in 2020. However, former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has suggested that Britain would be unlikely to receive the same financial arrangement if it rejoined the EU. The original rebate reflected specific economic and political circumstances that existed when it was negotiated.
Without this special arrangement, Britain could face a different and potentially higher financial contribution to the EU budget. The amount would depend on economic conditions, the applicable contribution formula and the terms agreed during accession negotiations.
This financial issue raises an important question for British taxpayers: would the economic benefits of EU membership justify the cost of contributing to the European budget? Supporters of rejoining might argue that access to the single market, increased trade and greater investment could generate economic benefits that outweigh membership costs. Critics, however, could question whether the government should commit billions of pounds to European institutions when domestic services already face considerable financial pressure.
Another important issue is the future of British sovereignty. Rejoining the EU would involve accepting a common legal and regulatory framework in many areas. European rules would influence certain domestic policies, and Britain would need to participate in European decision-making processes according to the rights and responsibilities of membership.
Some people would welcome this arrangement because international cooperation can provide economic stability and strengthen Britain’s influence in Europe. Others might regard it as a reduction in national independence. The disagreement reflects the different political expectations that shaped the Brexit referendum.
Interestingly, Barnier has also indicated that adopting the euro would not necessarily have to be an immediate requirement in negotiations over a possible British return. This suggests that certain monetary arrangements could potentially be discussed separately. Nevertheless, any such outcome would depend on the legal framework and the agreement of existing EU member states.
The wider political situation also matters. Andy Burnham has reopened the discussion about Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe, arguing that the country should examine different possibilities, including closer cooperation and potentially rejoining the EU. However, he has indicated that major changes should not take place without public involvement and democratic legitimacy.
Any attempt to rejoin would involve complicated negotiations and require the agreement of EU member states. Britain could not assume that its previous membership arrangements would automatically be restored. The political circumstances have changed, and European leaders would need to consider the interests of their own countries as well as those of Britain.
In my opinion, the debate should focus on practical economic consequences rather than emotional arguments about Brexit. Britain must carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of every available option. Improved trade, investment, employment opportunities and educational exchanges could offer significant benefits. At the same time, financial contributions, regulatory responsibilities and free movement would need to be explained honestly to the public.
It is also essential to recognise that rejoining the EU is not the only way to improve relations with Europe. Britain could pursue agreements on trade, energy, research, defence and environmental cooperation without necessarily becoming a full member again. These alternatives may provide different levels of economic integration while allowing the government to maintain greater independence in certain policy areas.
Ultimately, the British public should have access to clear and reliable information before any major decision is made. Political leaders must explain not only what Britain could gain from closer European relations but also what responsibilities and financial commitments would accompany such a move.
In conclusion, Michel Barnier’s four conditions highlight the fundamental principles that Britain would have to accept to regain access to the European single market: the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. The potential loss of the UK’s former £5 billion annual budget rebate adds another significant financial consideration. Although rejoining the EU could create opportunities for trade, investment and economic growth, it would also involve difficult political choices concerning immigration, sovereignty and public expenditure. The future of Britain’s relationship with Europe will therefore depend on a careful assessment of economic benefits, political responsibilities and public opinion. Above all, any decision should be based on transparency, democratic consent and the long-term interests of the British people.