submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave to c/world

The European Commission argues it was Europe's students and young graduates who were most affected by Brexit's mobility restrictions. The UK has reportedly responded cooly to the proposal.

The European Union is trying to improve mobility between its 27 member-states and the UK, particularly for people between the ages of 18 and 30. But whether such a proposal would be welcomed by London remains to be seen.

The EU's executive arm, the European Commission, is trying to open bloc-wide talks with the UK on allowing youth from EU countries to study or work and live in Britain for up to four years, with the same arrangement for British youth.

The proposal would largely revert youth mobility to pre-Brexit times, when members of the then-28-member EU, including Britain, were allowed to work and study without visa requirements. The Commission's new plan would involve a visa, but one whose fees would not be "excessive."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Shard 136 points 1 month ago

Everyday we are reminded of the damage that state-sponsored misinformation can do.

The stupidest part about brexit was that it was a non-binding referendum. They could have just ignored it. But I guess sometimes you need your house to burn down before you realize why we need a publicly funded fire department.

[-] Passerby6497 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's was only non-binding if they lost, like they had previously. Asshats like Farrage were just going to keep trying until they got the answer they wanted.

[-] InformalTrifle 1 points 1 month ago

Having a referendum then ignoring the result because it’s not what you wanted or expected might not have gone down so well. Especially when that referendum was the carrot used to get people to vote for Cameron

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 84 points 1 month ago

EU, please let Canada in while you're at it. We share a border with denmark

[-] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

Also France is just a short ferry ride away if you count St. Pierre and Miquelon .

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

France is already in the EU though

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Shhhh! Some of them don’t know

[-] marcos 21 points 1 month ago

Brazilian here, from the country that shares the largest of the borders of France...

The free movement of people have been nice, is there any chance the they would pressure Brazil into losing a bit of sovereignty and obey the EU's Constitution?

[-] Hiro8811 9 points 1 month ago

imagine all country that border EU states start joining in lol

[-] marcos 2 points 1 month ago

No need to actually join :)

[-] Bahnd 7 points 1 month ago

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I'm all for it, but no weird extra right like the UK had. Also, would that perhaps be a problem with your monarchy?

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

While the governor general (rep of the crown) technically has to sign off on laws passed, they have never in the country's history refused to sign. If they ever did, I think it might be enough for Canada to kick the "monarchy" part of the constitutional monarchy for good.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago

As long as it's mutual, so 18-30 year old EU citizens can live and work in the UK with little restriction, I'm all for this. I imagine there may be people in the UK who will take issue with that.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago

A lot of people were given false hope that Brexit would magically solve all their problems. People now regret it.

[-] [email protected] 53 points 1 month ago

I'd love if the UK could again be part of the EU. Brexit was the most damaging blow Russia did to Europe in the past 3 decades at least.

[-] Luvs2Spuj 20 points 1 month ago

There is a reasonable amount of damage being done in Ukraine by Russia just now, but I understand where you are coming from.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

british people act like having slightly worse prices is worde than being bombed lol

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

They won’t be allowed back under the same terms they had before the exit. For example every new member has to become part of the Eurozone and adopt the Euro. I definitely see this becoming a dealbreaker for British conservatives who love to have their ~~master~~ King on their currency

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

The thing is, that won't work well either. The UK had a very special position previously in the EU, like not adopting the Euro as currency and many other extra "perks" or whatever you want to call it. If they go back in they will likely not get any of those since otherwise it will look really bad for other countries that recently joined. Then people will be unhappy about joining again because it is not what they remembered. So, no, there is no winning with this one, damage is done.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

The best was the discounted membership. UK paid less than Italy. Populists have easy way with fools.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid 26 points 1 month ago

What's crazy is that it was revealed that the leave campaign was all intentionally lies and that it wasn't what people actually wanted and the government just said "too bad."

[-] Blue_Morpho 14 points 1 month ago

What's crazier is Boris Johnson, Michael Grove, and the rest didn't face any repercussions for the lies.

They even still have their jobs in parliament!

[-] ChunkMcHorkle 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

deleted by creator

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Why restrict the ages? Looks like corporate vying for cheap labor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Here's a revolutionary idea: don't set an age limit!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

The UK already has its own Youth Mobility scheme, where it had already struck deals with 13 countries.

If I'm correct, the countries are: 

  • Australia
  • Canada
  • New Zealand
  • South Korea
  • Andorra
  • Iceland
  • Japan
  • Monaco
  • San Marino
  • Uruguay
  • Hong Kong
  • Taiwan
  • India

If this is what the UK leadership see as the better choice for British citizens, then it's up to the citizens of Great Britain to do something about it in the next election.

[-] brewery 2 points 1 month ago

Surely, they are not mutually exclusive and some form of this scheme has been in place for some countries (albeit mainly white commonwealth countries) for many years, even when the UK was in the EU.

Holy shit though, I just looked up the UK's scheme and you have to pay almost a grand in fees (mostly NHS surcharge) and have over £2,500 in savings. I don't want rich a-holes coming over for an extended holiday instead of normal people from more different cultures. Let's vote for better and fairer immigration polices

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I feel sorry for those who feel having £3500 makes you rich.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I get the sentiment but you’re glossing over two important things; 48.11% of people voted to remain and there hasn’t been a second referendum.

Half the country wanted to remain, the other half are racists and/or idiots that believed the outright lies peddled by the leave campaign. Latest polls suggest 60% would vote to remain today but we’re not being offered the chance to vote on that. Voting labour in general elections doesn’t mean we get to rejoin the EU.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Chainweasel 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If I remember correctly, France was one of the first ones to cut them off after they left and they cut them off hard.

I wonder how willing they'll be to let them come crawling back.

And how does EU membership work?
Does it need to be a unanimous decision from the current member states to admit/readmit a country or is it a majority/supermajority decision?

[-] ForgotAboutDre 10 points 1 month ago

The EU has members elect politicians - MEPs (Members of European Parliament). These politicians vote on issues similar to how most other parliaments would. Many issues are agreed upon this way.

MEPs are grouped by political alignment not nationality.

The EU council is the other legislative body in the EU. The EU parliament can send legislation that it doesn't have the authority to pass itself here for consideration. This type of legislation is still supposed to be developed and debated in parliament. The EU council is a collections of ministers from each member state. These ministers represent their government, not the people (directly at least). This council can approve and amend legislation passed by the parliament. This is where the vetos can happen.

The council is important to maintain the sovereignty of individual nations. Despite what Brexit campaigns say, the EU parliament is and isn't going to be sovereign. The council enables each sovereign state to stop legislation they don't want. This often means the EU passes very boring and very agreeable legislation. But it legislation that makes the rules within multiple nations consistent so commerce is easier and less bureaucratic. Once you comply with the EU rules, you've complied with all the countries within it.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

While this is broadly right for legislation, the question above was about admission of new member states.

Admission of new member states requires unanimity among existing member states. That is because EU membership is based on international treaties. For every member state there is a treaty like this one that regulates their entry into the EU; you can see that it's a treaty between literally all (existing and new) member states which had to agree to it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)


We can just ban people over the age of 45 and give the rest some freedom that they wanted back.

[-] merthyr1831 7 points 1 month ago

Labour said no, Tories said No. So maybe it's time people consider something beyond those 2

[-] Squizzy 2 points 1 month ago

I say no to this, they wanted out so they got it. This would be another concession made to the brits and remove an incentive for the younger generation to get involved and get their voice heard. Leave them outside until they learn.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
296 points (98.4% liked)

World News

36776 readers
2946 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World


We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.


founded 11 months ago