Some comments from the perspective of EUParl, a veto player able to block any Withdrawel Agreement and FTA in the negotiations, on EU-UK migration matters. /1
The role of EUParl is generally underappreciated in UK media. The focus is rather on Commission and Council (esp. FR & GER). This is justified to some extend hence it covers a wide range of key actors and institutions. However, it ignores that EUParl plays a significant role. /2
This is, interestingly, recognised by EU institutions & actors. They're open w/ them about the negotiations and there is an exchange of information which is crucial since the EUParl's an autonomous veto power who could blow up any agreement if their interests aren't addressed. /3
So, what are their interests? Migration is arguably a crucial part of it and (potentially) avoiding systematic long term risks (e.g. breakdown of EU or SM through undermining indivisibility of four freedoms by pressure from third parties). /4
Why migration? Theoretically it's a domain of member states and even if EUParl could build up credibility in this domain, it has very limited powers to shape it. /5
There are two points to make: 1) EUParl suffers from perceived insignificance. Turnout for those elections rate among regional elections even though they are in many policy matters more relevant than national parliaments. /6
Championing the protection of citizen rights could boost popularity and strengthen EUParl's standing among EU populous. 2) Many MEPs see it as their duty to make sure than EU citz are sufficiently protected, it's not all political strategy but also conviction. /7
The issue is for several reasons as such a big deal: UK's reputation within EU states suffered. Yes, Brexit is seen as self-harm and clownery of former Global Player not coming to terms with its shrinking significance. /8
But it's also about it's reputation on treating foreigners by its policy & from part of the electorate. The Leave campaign significantly harmed or worsened the standing. It was seen as outright racist. The hostile environment policy (see the threat comment) didn't help either. /9
The Windrush scandal was recognised outside UK and that spouses or mothers/fathers are deported if they don't have sufficient funds is seen as plainly evil and illegitimate. Hence the panic among EU citz in UK. You don't want to be left alone with those "malicious beasts". /10
Another point contributing was that EEA family permits 4 unmarried partners where plainly not granted until recently to hit migration targets. It made it necessary that you needed to marry your partner for migration purposes. Surely, for UK citz this is mostly seen as normal. /11
But giving the bad reputation of UK it just contributes to a bad image. And it creates personalisable & clearly identifiable victims. This is almost perfect from a communication perspective since this boost authencity & salience of actors aiming to protect potential victims. /12
Hence the aggressiveness on questions of FoM of persons. UK shouldn't bank too much on concession on it. If you go for SM, you won't get huge flexibility here (adjustments yes, but nothing substantial) - same on WA. There was absolutely no appetite to give in in this area. /13
It's not just a matter of policy for UK. EUParl is likely to take the position that FoM is a right which needs to be defended against attempts to undermine it (even if it comes w/ democratic mandates). It has tactical reasons but also builds up on conviction. 14/14
