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 UK Rejoining EU – Including £5bn Bombshell
Britain’s future relationship with the European Union has returned to the centre of political debate after former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier outlined the conditions the United Kingdom would have to accept if it wanted to rejoin the European single market. His comments have created fresh difficulties for Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who has expressed an interest in rebuilding closer economic and political relationships with Brussels. Barnier made it clear that Britain would not be allowed to choose only the advantages of European membership while rejecting its responsibilities. His warning also included a major financial issue: Britain would probably lose the annual £5 billion rebate that Margaret Thatcher secured during her premiership. The remarks have reignited questions about national sovereignty, immigration, public spending and whether reversing Brexit would actually deliver the benefits supporters expect.
Barnier, who served as the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator between 2016 and 2021, explained that the single market operates according to four fundamental freedoms. These are the free movement of goods, services, people and capital. According to him, any country seeking membership must accept all four principles rather than selecting individual arrangements that suit its domestic political interests. He warned that there could be no single market with different rules designed specifically for Britain. His message was particularly important because freedom of movement was one of the most controversial issues during the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The first condition concerns the free movement of goods. Membership of the single market would allow British businesses to trade more easily with European countries by reducing regulatory barriers and unnecessary customs procedures. British manufacturers, farmers and exporters could benefit from closer access to European customers. However, Britain would also need to comply with relevant EU product standards and regulations. This could limit the government’s ability to establish completely independent rules in certain areas. Supporters believe that closer alignment would encourage investment and improve trade, while critics argue that Britain could end up following regulations over which it had limited influence.
The second condition involves the free movement of services. This principle allows businesses and professionals to provide services across participating countries under agreed arrangements. It is particularly important for financial institutions, consultancy companies, technology businesses and other service industries. Britain has a large services sector, and closer access to European markets could create additional opportunities for British companies. Nevertheless, accepting the relevant European regulatory framework would involve obligations and potentially reduce the freedom to develop completely separate domestic policies.
The third condition is the free movement of people. This is likely to be the most politically sensitive issue for British voters. Under the principle, citizens of participating European countries can generally move to another member state to live, work and study without requiring the same immigration permissions imposed on people from outside the arrangement. Barnier insisted that Britain could not enjoy the economic advantages of the single market while rejecting this principle. The issue is particularly significant because controlling immigration was one of the main arguments made by Brexit supporters during the referendum campaign.
The fourth condition concerns the free movement of capital. This principle allows money and investments to move more freely between participating countries. It supports cross-border investment, financial transactions and business development. For Britain, participation could strengthen economic relationships with European markets, but it would also require acceptance of the rules governing the movement of capital within the single market. Taken together, these four freedoms represent the foundations of European economic integration. Barnier’s position was that Britain would have to accept the entire framework if it wanted to return.
Another important issue raised by Barnier concerns Britain’s financial contribution to the European Union. During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, the UK negotiated a special budget rebate that significantly reduced its net contribution to the European budget. The arrangement became one of the most recognisable features of Britain’s former EU membership. Its value reached approximately £5.2 billion in 2020. However, Barnier suggested that the rebate would not be available if Britain decided to rejoin. He argued that the circumstances had fundamentally changed and that the UK would have to negotiate its financial responsibilities under the rules applicable to a new member.
The potential loss of the rebate represents a major financial consideration. If Britain returned to the EU without its previous special arrangements, its contribution to the European budget could be substantially different from what it paid before Brexit. The exact amount would depend on the terms negotiated, the country’s economic performance and the applicable EU budget formula. Nevertheless, the possibility of losing an annual discount worth billions of pounds is likely to become an important part of any future political debate about rejoining.
The issue also creates a challenge for Andy Burnham. The Prime Minister has suggested that Britain should examine different options for developing closer relationships with Europe, including the possibility of eventually returning to the European Union. He believes that the existing Brexit arrangements have not delivered all the economic benefits promised and that stronger cooperation could improve trade, investment and national prosperity. However, Barnier’s comments demonstrate that closer integration would involve significant political and economic compromises.
Britain is currently preparing further agreements with the European Union covering food and agricultural trade, emissions trading and youth mobility. These arrangements are intended to reduce some of the difficulties created by Brexit without immediately restoring full EU membership. The government hopes that closer cooperation will help British businesses and provide additional opportunities for young people. However, Barnier’s intervention suggests that any attempt to move further towards the single market would require a much more fundamental discussion about immigration, regulation and financial contributions.
The political opposition is likely to focus heavily on these conditions. Conservative politicians and Reform UK have consistently argued that Brexit was intended to restore Britain’s ability to control its own laws, borders and economic policies. They may use Barnier’s remarks to question whether Labour is prepared to accept significant concessions in exchange for closer access to European markets. For them, the four freedoms and the potential loss of the financial rebate demonstrate that returning to the EU would not simply mean recovering economic advantages without additional responsibilities.
On the other hand, supporters of closer European integration argue that Britain must consider the economic consequences of remaining outside the single market. They point to additional paperwork, trade barriers and difficulties faced by businesses since Brexit. They believe that closer relationships with European partners could help improve productivity, attract investment and strengthen Britain’s international position. From this perspective, the financial contribution required for membership should be compared with the potential economic benefits rather than considered in isolation.
Another important consideration is public opinion. Brexit remains a deeply sensitive subject, and any proposal to rejoin the European Union would require extensive political discussion. Many voters who supported leaving in 2016 may be concerned about restoring freedom of movement or accepting European regulations. Others may believe that the economic difficulties associated with Brexit justify reconsidering Britain’s position. Any government seeking such a fundamental change would need to explain the consequences clearly and obtain sufficient democratic support.
Ultimately, Michel Barnier’s four conditions have exposed the difficult choices facing Britain as it considers its future relationship with Europe. Rejoining the single market could provide economic opportunities, but it would also involve accepting the free movement of goods, services, people and capital. The possible loss of the £5 billion annual rebate adds another significant financial consideration. For Andy Burnham, the challenge is to determine whether closer European integration can deliver enough economic value to justify these obligations.
In conclusion, Britain’s relationship with the European Union cannot be rebuilt simply by selecting the arrangements that appear most attractive. Any move towards membership of the single market or the EU would require serious negotiations and difficult compromises. The British public deserves a transparent explanation of the potential costs, benefits and constitutional consequences. The central question is no longer simply whether Brexit was successful or unsuccessful, but what kind of relationship with Europe would best serve Britain’s long-term economic interests, democratic principles and national sovereignty.