Freedom of movement is a beautiful concept, a noble ideal, and one of the big pluses in regard the EU. If not in a practical sense, then at least in its visionary scope.
Of course, the Brexit argument on face value appears to be a choice between national sovereignty without free movement, or federalisation with it. So I can totally understand why people on the remain side of the argument lament the loss of free movement that will come with Britain leaving.
However, there are ways of having free movement between nations without surrendering sovereignty. I'll briefly outline one way of doing this below. I'm calling it the Scott System, after myself cheekily :)
..the system
In this system two countries can agree to freedom of movement for a period of time, with it then being renewed or discontinued at the end of this period.
In my example I'm stating 10 years (though it could be anything). It would also be useful if this period began and ended at easily memorable dates in time.
In my example the first period begins; 1st January 2021.
And ends; 31st December 2030.
So, for example, Britain and Canada could agree to have complete free movement starting on this date. Then at the end of the period if it's working fine they could both simply renew it and continue for another 10 years, or if either is unhappy or feels it's not working discontinue it and end the free movement.
Within this you could then have rules and preconditions stipulating what the rights are for people that do go to live in the opposing country. In my system I would state that anyone who lives in the other country for 5 years automatically gets citizenship in that country.
So, if you go to live in Canada in 2022 you get full citizen rights if you're still living there in 2027 - regardless of whether free movement is renewed or cancelled in 2030.
However, let's say you go to live there in 2028 (two years before the deadline), you then go with the knowledge that if the arrangement isn't renewed your right to be there ends, and it's then at the discretion of the Canadian government to decide if and how long you stay. As it would be under standard (non-free movement) circumstances pretty much.
If they do continue the free movement though, and you're still there in 2033 then you get full citizenship after the 5 years. As in the previous example.
This way everyone knows where they stand, whatever happens. Unlike the EU now where there are no provisions for what happens to citizens if a country chooses to leave - as is that country's democratic right. With this way people understand what the potential circumstances are. So if they choose to take a job or buy a home in another country they know full well what opportunities/risks they're embracing.
Multiple Arrangements with Multiple Countries..
On top of this countries would be able to have such bilateral arrangements with as many other countries as they liked. So Britain could have free movement with, let's say, Canada, France and Germany (this is assuming they aren't in the EU and bound by its laws), while simultaneously Canada could have such arrangement with Britain, the US and Iceland.
British citizens would understand that they have the freedom to go to live and work in Canada, France, and Germany.
Canadian citizens would understand that they have the freedom to do the same in Britain, the US, and Iceland.
...However, Canadians wouldn't have the right to live and work in France and Germany. Nor would British people have the right to do this in the US or Iceland.
This may seem confusing at first, but it's no different to free movement now. Where British people understand they can work and travel in EU countries, but don't have the same rights when it comes to non-EU places such as the US or Turkey.
If all countries used the same dating period for their various bilateral agreements it would simplify things even more so.
Over time each country then could expand the number of countries they have these agreements with (if each country freely chooses to do so of course).
So, for example, Britain could agree to have free movement arrangements with Canada and the US starting on 1st January 2021. Then, after ten years if this is working and people are happy with it, agree to extra arrangements with say France or Mexico. Starting on 1st January 2031. And so on and so forth.
..how to stop people going to countries they're not supposed to be in.
Of course, people will ask; if countries have multiple agreements with multiple countries, how do you stop people going to countries that their country doesn't have an agreement with. For instance, if Britain and Canada have an agreement, and Canada and the US have an agreement, but the US and Britain doesn't have an agreement. How do you stop British people going to the US or vice versa.
Firstly, border checks could still take place. Obviously free movement suggests "completely borderless" to most people. However, checks at airports and borders are hardly a huge inconvenience. It's perfectly reasonable. We have to give our I.D. every time we buy alcohol at a supermarket. So, if you have the opportunity to go and work, live and potentially become a full citizen in another country having to show a passport at a border once in a while isn't really a hardship.
Secondly, and this is the real beauty of this system, as each country has the power to end free movement with a country at the end of the 10 year period they can use this as leverage. So, as in the example above, let's say the US are unhappy that British people are illegally coming to their country via Canada. They can then either end their free movement with Canada, or use the threat of this to get Canada to take action to respect their borders more. Canada, in turn, if they value their arrangement with the US, can then either control their borders better, end their free movement with Britain. Or use the threat of this to put pressure on Britain to get their people to respect the law more fully.
After all, it is about respecting the law of each country. And why would countries want to continue arrangements with countries and people that don't respect their country and their laws? In this system they would have the power to choose who they have free movement with and how long they continue this for. Meaning that if countries want the benefits of free movement they also need to show appreciation for the countries they're doing this with.
Personally I think this would be a much better, and more flexible, system.
No comments:
Post a Comment