I appreciate the desire of pro-remain MPs to seek consensus (since consensus is a necessary feature of any decision-making) but I'm afraid I find aspects of the argument being made here by @NickyMorgan01 problematic. /1 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
First, to call this an 'evolutionary turn' is misleading. All that has happened is that the Cabinet has agreed a position amongst itself as a basis for discussion with the EU. /2
Second, pro-Brexiters have already (correctly) noticed that although the '12 principles' includes ending free movement, the position here in both the Cabinet agreement and the argument here is ambiguous. /3
This means that there might well be some aspect of free movement in any final deal with the EU. What is find problematic is that the argument should be continuously made that this *benefits* the UK. /4
Pretending that free movement isn't there by referring to the needs of business is disingenuous. We already know the damage being caused by Brexit anxiety to EU citizens in the UK (nurses a case in point). So this point needs addressing. /5
To not do so risks falling into the same trap as the many years before the referendum: not making the case as to why immigration (and not just EU migration) lets misleading information fester. /6
So, this needs tackling head on. Ending free movement hurts British people as well as the UK economy. Myths such as the driving down of wages need challenging at every opportunity (as @jdportes does). /7
This links to the false separation between 'economic' EU and 'political' EU which is repeated here. How can 'political' EU be rejected when the next paragraph reflects the PM's insistence on security cooperation? If 'security' is not political, then what is? /8
In short, pro-Europeans who accept that Brexit will happen in some form need to be far more robust about keeping what is good and not shying away from the controversial issues. That will only lead to more problems down the road. /END
