Labour is in turmoil over Brexit today. It did not take long for its post election euphoria to end. Labour's Queen's Speech amendment said (in part):
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to ....... recognise that no deal on Brexit is the very worst outcome and therefore call on the Government to negotiate an outcome that prioritises jobs and the economy, delivers the exact same benefits the UK has as a member of the Single Market and the Customs Union, ensures that there is no weakening of cooperation in security and policing, and maintains the existing rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.......”.
I stress there is lots in the rest I can agree with. The amendment was lost, which was predictable, but it is the issue on Brexit that matters because Chuka Ummuna, for whom I usually have little time, tabled another amendment that said:
At end add ‘but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens.'.
Fifty Labour MPs voted with Ummuna. They did what the Labour front bench has not done and will not do, which is say where it stands on Brexit. I am well aware Corbyn had a good election campaign: I said so. But he continued to duck Brexit. He has since early 2016, quite deliberately, and now the form of wording the official Labour amendment uses is no longer adequate.
The reason should, I think, be obvious. To demand that the UK have the exact same benefits that membership of the single market and customs union provide without actually signing up for them and accepting the consequences is obviously ridiculous. It's the equivalent of saying you want to see a team called Manchester United, made up of their existing players, play at a place called Old Trafford in Manchester, with all their usual supporters present but that you neither want to pay for doing so or to actually admit you support the club. It is to ask for the impossible. This is fantasy politics. It's in the realms of Boris Johnson 'cake and eat it' absurdity.
Ummuna, on this occasion, got it right. If the single market and customs union are in the best interests of the UK (and they are) then Labour has to say so. It has to say it is doing so because that is what a policy for the young people, the working people, and the vulnerable in this country demands. They have to take a stand. Asking for the impossible is not taking a stand. And it simply demeans the important other demands Labour made to then also demand what is clearly not deliverable. If Labour wants to be taken seriously it cannot undermine the seriousness of its agenda in this way.
I have very little time for the right wing of Labour. But if Jeremy Corbyn is serious about delivering change he has to make up his mind, make deliverable demands that prove he is a PM in waiting, and say what he really wants on Brexit. Further ridiculous fudges on this issue can only harm Labiur, and that's not in the country's best interests, let alone Corbyn's.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Labour is not in turmoil. An amendment by the self-serving, pulicity-seeking Chuka Umunna was roundly defeated. No Tory MP, not even Ken Clarke, voted for it. Corbyn’s critics like Benn and Cooper did not vote for it. No member of the shadow cabinet voted for it. Four front-benchers voted for it. One resigned. Three were sacked. All four will be replaced today. So, where’s this turmoil The Daily Mail, The Express and Richard Murphy are banging on about?
If you;re that simplistic it’s not worth bothering to argue
I suggest you take your diatribes elsewhere. This place is for serious left of centre discussion
I am sorry but like millions I agree with Steve
Go and play fantasy politics then
But when it all goes wrong I will say I told you so
Right now I’ll be more pragmatic: stop worshipping Corbyn. He can do campaigns for sure and I said so. But politics? That’s still not clear
Your public apology was a public acknowledgment of your lack of political judgement. In two years’ time you’d be apologising for this latest rant.
Remember Nick Clegg? He went into the election saying exactly the same thing as you and he lost to a Corbyn’s Labour candidate who didn’t support Umunna’s amendment.
Despite Iraq and everything else, most of us on the left always voted Labour under Blair when it came to it. Disappointed Remainiacs will do the same under Corbyn. That’s life.
No it wasn’t
I said:
I make it clear that this does not mean I think Labour have everything right. The manifesto has weaknesses. The tax policy is not all I would want, for a start. The economic policy still pays too much regard to neoliberal thinking. But it’s better than the anything the Tories are offering. And it’s ample enough to persuade me that voting Labour will be the right thing to do in many cases.
That said, if a vote for another party would help stop a Tory get elected and so prevent the harm to the well being of so many people in this country I would vote tactically, even if I am not greatly persuaded by the LibDems. If, however, a Green candidate had a hope I would vote for them. My attitude north of the birder is well known. I understand why people vote SNP.
By saying so I make clear my politics is not tribal and I wish Labour’s was not. That, in my opinion, is its greatest weakness.
But let me be clear: it has a plausible leader. I did not expect Jeremy to become that.
If you think that’s a ringing endorsement of his political judgement and a mea culpa on mine you’re seriously mistaken
A plausible leader is not even necessarily a good one
And I made clear that there were massive weaknesses
There still are
If you are motivated by truth and belief as you claim you’d devote more time supporting the Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens, whose position on Brexit is closest to yours.
You obsess about Labour because Corbyn’s Labour gave you the prominence you know you would never get anywhere else.
If only you managed your disappointment of losing out on a peerage a bit better, perhaps McDonnell might have forgiven you 🙂
Even Owen Smith is back in the Shadow Cabinet and didn’t vote for the Umunna amendment you’re jumping up and down about.
Might I remind you I take a lot of flack for working with the SNP?
I have co-authored with Caroline Lucas
And you will find Vince Cable referring to my work in Hansard many years ago
What is more I wrote nothing for Corbyn – he borrowed it all without asking
As for the peerage – it was Labour who wanted to use it as a tax dodge. I turned it down
It take only a day or so to realise they and I had no chance of co-existing and I was right
May I ask you how many articles you write about the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens here? You exposed your true colours during the ‘chicken coup’ and if you thought your ‘apology’ gives you a right to dictate Labour policy, you’re mistaken. You’re simply one of the commentators that showed their political limitations.
I co-wrote the Geeen New Deal
Search Scotland: there has been a mass of late
But on the Lib Dems most have been negative for e long time. I presume you can guess why
And I repeat, I have never been in Lanour. But if you think most parties create their own ideas you are wrong. Thinkers do that. Corbyn borrowed my thinking. That was his choice. I never asked him to.
I agree it is silly to imagine you can leave the single market but keep all the benefits. But surely it is equally silly to say you will leave the EU and remain in it’s main institutions? Neither is going to work. Labour can choose between these two unworkable propositions because they are in opposition. If/when they are in power, they will have to get real.
The Norwegian position is, I think, on the table
In which case what I suggest is not silly. It’s a possibility and is what Corbyn says he wants
Apologies, it was not my intention to suggest you were saying anything silly – I was referring to the Labour position on this. I agree a Norwegian type package is probably the only solution. However, if that is the Labour plan then you might forgive me for not knowing. It is not their clear stated policy as far as I can see, despite a few mentions of it by Mr Corbyn last year.
I asked on another forum yesterday what people thought Labour might conceivably have to offer in return for what would be a spectacularly generous deal on the part of the EU. The only thing anyone suggested was that Labour would make ‘some concessions’ on Freedom of Movement. I can’t help think it would take substantially more than that.
In the meantime, I can’t figure out whether the Labour position is simply a tactic aimed at some of their more gullible Remain voting supporters, or whether they really believe this is a credible standpoint.
The Labour leadership wants out
I realised that in March 2016
It wasn’t hard to work out
I was told so by very senior members of the team
The BREXIT issue is so toxic that I do not blame Corbyn for trying to avoid or skirt around it as much as possible at this moment in time. This is a problem created by the Tory party – as we all know.
And Ummuna? A fearless and principled politician – or just still wanting to undermine his Leader? I don’t trust the man – period. He is just a Tory with a smidgen of social conscience.
Corbyn’s non-committal may look weak or even dishonest to some of us. But I say again, BREXIT was created by the most destructive and irresponsible Tory party in this country’s history. Why allow yourself to be a target because of that?
How does anyone know what Corbyn’s strategy is? What is maybe more important here is not what is said but also WHEN. The BREXIT issue is just so dangerous.
This is the same party that was all too quiet before the election and then delivered that manifesto. Let’s wait and see.
Brexit was irresponsible
Ummuna may well be
But Corbyn can’t claim to be PM in waiting and duck reality
That is my point
Pilgrim Slight Return has this one right. The Tories must be made to ‘own’ this total disaster – which is all of their own making. What Labour says in opposition isn’t going to change much. They can only express their view as an opposing party. ‘We are where we are’ and Labour has been dragged here (mostly screaming and shouting) by the Tories and the tabloids who won the final fatal round of this contest with their vilification of Ed in order to get their evil way. Would we be here if the electors, the voters, the media and the Tories had listened to Ed? No way…
If people listened to leading Labour spokespeople, instead of the media’s ‘take’ on what Labour says, they would have heard the Shadow Chancellor live on TV dismiss Ummuna’s latest idea weeks ago. He pointed out that membership of the single market wasn’t on the table and wasn’t going to be. Labour can’t change that whilst in opposition. That’s the reality. Tell me how that’s wrong. What gets onto the table is decided by the EU and the Tories.
I think Richard is the one struggling with reality here. At this time, what is the point of letting all these noises-off from a small PLP minority distract Labour? This minority’s judgement on matters relating to Labour’s political strategy has recently proved to be pretty close to worthless. Corbyn’s judgement has been better than theirs. I put it mildly. And not just on this…
When you have a great leader, at last, you don’t listen to the also-rans, do you? Or do you?! I certainly don’t recommend that. I admire Richard’s work on Tax Justice. I think his economic ideas are brilliant. We disagreed over Corbyn last year in this forum. I was proved right on that occasion and I only mention the fact in the hope that the view I express won’t be casually dismissed again this time. I don’t go in for hero-worship either. Jezza is younger than I am and I can see his strengths and his weaknesses.
A very senior Tory commentator mentioned a few days ago that he suspected this would all be resolved eventually by a further referendum. People will probably have come to their senses by then. In the meantime, please save all the hot air for the people who are actually running this show; the Tories. They’ve done a diabolically bad job so far. Let’s focus everyone’s attention on them. Big picture please…
McDonnell’s job is to oppose the givernment, not Ummuna
The single market is on the table
And those who know anything about the negotiation know leaving is madness
As do a majority in the country
But I am supposedly out of touch with the reality?
It is me suggesting opposing the Tories
So too, unfortunately, is Ummuna
And McDinnell is as crass on this as he was on Osborne’s fiscal charger which he wanted to sign up to I would remind you – committing Labour to full blooded austerity
I sometimes seriously wonder whether McDonnell and his small coterie who run COrbyn aren’t really Tory stooges
And you fall for thinking they’re left wing
Heaven help us
I don’t claim to understand parliamentary games but I’m not at all sure this was the right time to do this though. There are quite a few Tories who would agree with the wish to stay in the single market and note that not one of them voted for this amendment. It was the wrong time. All it has done is highlight divisions in the Labour party. It was never going to get passed as an amendment to the Queens speech, and seems more about Chuka Ummuna making problems for Corbyn.
The right time is every time it is possible
Richard, I think you know that Corbyn/Old Labour have long been against the EU, or specifically freedom of movement. But it’s become poisonous to admit this even though they know that it is a key motivator for voters. To be precise I would categorise Corbyn as being against the wrong sort of free movement, the type used to undermine workers and their rights. A bit like Milliband was against the wrong sort of capitalist. It’s not a nuanced debate that is welcome and I think they want to let the Tories run with this and mess it up big time.
For the record I strongly disagree with this stance but it is my best guess on their political motivations. My big problem is that this alienates 48% who the Tories have already alienated. I see it as short termism and they could have played a longer game, but I sort of get it.
I suspect a not insignificant chunk of the voters labour gained at GE2017 will be regretting the decision now. That said the immediate priority #1 was to stop Theresa May getting a huge hard brexit mandate, there is time for Labour to sort themselves out, but i am not hopeful!
Corbyn wants to leave the EU. That has long been his position. He’s not changed his mind on this issue and I’ve no doubt he was pleased with the referendum result. I’m not surprised we are now where we are. Facing both ways, as Labour effectively did during the election, was never going to last long. Most of the PLP and membership want a soft brexit, but the leadership are dead set in aligning with the Tories and going for the cleanest of breaks. The Tories are split on brexit but so are Labour, which makes the next couple of years testing to say the least.
Agreed
And you’re right: we have an unholy alliance between Corbyn and the far right here
‘an unholy alliance between Corbyn and the far right here’
That makes no sense , Richard, Corbyn’s reasons for his ant- EU stance are UTTERLY different form the far right who are xenophobic, nationalist, jingoistic and ultra-free market. Where’s the overlap?
Corbyn recognised back in the 70’s that the EU vision was being taken over by global finance and neoliberalism-we now know that IS what happened. There’s no alliance at all, an alliance means to ‘to form a union for mutual benefit’ -come off it!
Does it make any difference if the motive is different if the consequence is the same
The person who died of manslaughter is as dead as the person who dies of murder
And for the record, the UK government was also taken over by neoliberalism. Are you suggesting we leave that to?
Is running away a strategy?
Richard, one of the leading Dutch newspapers had a couple of weeks ago a piece on the absurdity of the overall debate in the UK regarding Brexit. Highlighting that there has in the last two years been the referendum, post referendum debate, general election and now post-election debate without any serious discussion of Brexit. As you mention neither party has got further than variants of having a cake and eating it nonsense.
The rest of the world can see the UK for the political joke that it is currently.
The EU position is really quite simple. Either become like Norway or Switzerland or you are fully out. The UK needs to have the serious debate and decide quickly what it wants or it will just end up falling out. ?Unfortunately those that want the hard brexit, know that the best way to achieve it is by falling out with little deal at the end of the negotiations so they will continue to muddy the discussion with nonsense and ignore reality.
You summarise it well
Which is precisely why Labour must in my view not mention the ‘B’ word. If they did, attention would be turned from how merde the Tories are to the Labour threat of going against the ‘people’s advisory’ and then I’m convinced the Tories would call another election very quickly.
If I were Corbyn and I was pro EU, I would keep quiet about BREXIT and only once in power would I discuss it with a view to staying in. I’d have at least 4 years to win the argument and if I did more Murphy style QE I think people would forgive us because people conflate the EU with austerity. Murphy QE might give the economy and wages the uplift that it needs and those attitudes might be placated.
I know that this is not honest but how else can you deal with the rampant unreason that is BREXIT? Sometimes angels must be devils – especially at times like this.
At some point the Labour leadership will have to decide where it stands on Brexit. If Corbyn continues on his present tack he will alienate the 18-30s who just turned out in large numbers to vote Labour. They’ll feel pretty betrayed by this latest move.
But if he keeps faith with them, Corbyn will kiss goodbye to the older, working class supporters who want to leave the EU, seemingly at any cost.
I confess to being partisan but Corbyn’s position compares unfavourably with that of Caroline Lucas – during the referendum campaign she argued strongly in favour of free movement of people and for reform of EU institutions to make Europe a more democratic entity that put people before corporations.
The old overwhelmingly vote anything but Labour anyway
He can’t win there whatever he does
Caroline and Nicola Sturgeon leave Corbyn standing any day I am afraid
But in 2 years time there will be 1.5 million less old people and 1.5 million more young voters
You assume people don’t change their minds as they age
I think that demographic question may not be as simple as either of you suggest.
On the one hand there is a lazy tendency for some people to become more conservative with age because they grow tired of change and conflate conservatism with stability and preserving the status quo. To some extent they do so wrongly because conservatives introduce regressive and reactionary changes.
On the other hand we can look at some of the indicators such as the decline in tabloid readership (for a quick example). That decline correlates with the fact that the established readership is literally dying-off.
The current generation of young voters are not going to take a sudden interest in the Daily Mail when they turn 40. Some values pass with the generation that carries them. There is a case to be argued that the Tories have dug themselves into a position of long-term demographic decline.
I accept all that
I was only trying to counter a relatively common assumption now seen that the young will not change their preferences
I am struggling with this one. As a remainer I support any efforts to minimise Brexit or cancel it all together but I can’t see how Umunna’s amendment has done anything other than highlight Labour divisions at a time when the Tories are furiously hiding theirs. You say Labour should be clear on Brexit but until the Tories, the party that is actually running Brexit, are, that would be a trap.
What am I missing?
I have little time for Ummuna
But he was right to make clear that Labour has to ay where it is on this issue
The time for fudging is past
I’m surprised to find I don’t agree with this. I’m a strong remainer. I’m British but I have a daughter who is Italian, and Brexit feels like an attack on my family. When May says those who consider themselves citizens of the world (read Europeans) are citizens of nowhere, it says to me that in her eyes I don’t belong here anymore.
But I suspect the fudge is productive and the best we can hope for for now. It is of course only really an interim position, but Labour needs to lay the foundations and wait for the climate to change. The no-worse-off position needs to be driven home. Once accepted it gives a basis either to insist on a v soft Brexit or for looking at Brexit again.
I am proposing a fudge
LAbour is proposing hard Brexit (the right wing option) and pretending it may accept a fudge
I didn’t expect it to go back to incompetence so quickly
Labour needs the vote of those who voted leave as well as those who voted to remain to have a chance of winning an election.
Yesterday we were informed, including by some who had signed the initial amendment g, that the manifesto position for a peoples Brexit that supports jobs had subsequently progressed.
In addition to points on free movement in the manifesto Labour wants to achieve no tariffs for goods travelling between the U.K. and EU and EU to U.K.; no new red tape at customs and a deal for services as for goods. It wants to leave being in the customs union on the table. MPs are having ongoing engagements on Labour’s position on BREXIT. Senior members of the team have been in discussion with EU countries about partnerships.
All those are meaningless statements in my opinion
As I have made clear, Labour can want what it likes. It has only the real option the EU will make available to choose between. We don’t dictate what they offer
I’m a Labour party member who supports JC but not thoughtlessly or unreservedly. His position on the realities of government spending and on Brexit trouble me.
Based largely on the information and opinions in your blog Richard, I’m of the opinion that the UK could stay in the EU and use workarounds to circumvent EU government spending rules. Thus we could, if we chose, have the best of both worlds: membership of the single market and progressive government spending and taxation policies leading to full employment and useful investment in green technology and infrastructure.
What I’m confused about is whether, while still in the EU, the UK could make enforceable employment laws that, while not falling foul of the EU’s freedom of movement, would effectively restrict economic immigration to only roles where we have a genuine shortfall of workers while also preventing the undercutting of UK citizens’ wages. Is this possible while UK is still in the EU?
Also while still in the EU is there a way of creating an MMT style Jobs Guarantee for only UK citizens that doesn’t conflict with EU rules?
If the answer to both questions is yes then I can see no reason why we should leave the EU and we must pressure the Labour Leadership to accept this point of view.
If the answer to both questions is yes then the Labour party should relentlessly explain this to the public and push to end Brexit while selling an alternative future for the UK within the EU where both Brexiter’s and Remainer’s concerns are addressed. To stick with the current division of the country along the line drawn in the referendum seems unnecessary and harmful.
GE 2017 showed the mainstream media is losing its grip on the hearts and minds of the electorate. Why kowtow to their false framing any longer? Labour has time while the polls are in their favour to reframe the whole debate once and for all. I and other Labour party rank and file can help do that but we’re lacking coherence or leadership on this issue.
I’m going to talk to our parliamentary candidate about this in my constituency – Richard would you be prepared to talk to him directly and make the case too? Our candidate is a tax accountant so he should get it if it comes from a qualified expert…
a) We can always control no EU migration – and we don’t, at least well. So we don’t want to, very obviously
b) The EU situation is then a distraction on migration
c) We can enforce our minimum wage
d) We were offered opt outs on some social issues: they have now gone
e) There is no such thing as a job guarantee but we can aim for full employment and do as much QE to help it as we wish
f) Every policy I have suggested to deliver this can be done in the EU, albeit with a bit of a work round sometimes
My take at the moment is that Corbyn is on a knife-edge between two very different Labour movements. At the referendum, 74% of Labour supporters voted to remain. However at the same time 2/3rds of Labour seats are in areas that voted to leave (recall that Theresa May spent much time campaigning on the offensive in these areas). Moving too close to Leave threatens the bulk of the support while moving too close to Remain threatens the bulk of the seats.
I don’t envy that position at all, but I think that while we are still on an election footing I would rather see the current leadership be allowed to hold their course than see infighting return right now.
Cheers
Nick
I’m not entirely au fait with how these Brexit negotiations are going (which doesn’t set me apart from anybody else in the U.K.), but the talk of a Norway style deal still being on the table seems to me to be a bit of a clutch at straws. The two main parties in the U.K. Have committed through the queens speech to a “hard Brexit” meaning we will be leaving both the customs union and the single market, have they not? This then would mean that it is down to our, thus far, seemingly weak negotiating team to get a deal that is better than WTO tariffs and the virtual end of the British economy. I won’t be holding my breath in hope or anticipation!
I now regret that my only hope is that the population up here in Scotland are given a choice through a second independence referendum and that they recognise the failings of the current Westminster government to protect Britain’s future never mind Scotland’s future :-(. I feel for my fellow Brits south of the border who do not have a frying pan to jump back into out of the fire that the Tories have set ablaze in the U.K. with Brexit.
If they have committed to hard brexit why did Corbyn demand a soft one?
I do not believe that the single market an CU are off the table in that case
And I do not think the EU does, at all
I am glad that you have some optimism regarding this debacle, but I do find it hard to share.
Even if Corbyn does want a “soft Brexit” he does not have any real clout in parliament now that the Tories have bought the DUP’s support. I cannot see any of the Tory MP’s having enough gumption to stand against Theresa May and thus any vote on what type of Brexit is agreed will be won by the Government. I do hope I am proven wrong, but I’ve held too much hope in the correct political decisions being made over the past few years only to be disappointed time and again.
Replying to James. You would hope Ken Clarke will vote against anything like a soft still SM Brexit. Why betray your principles in the last few years in parliament. Add to that Anna Soubry who seems to hate the current Tory leadership and position on Brexit more than many non-Tories. Plus you then have the likes of Nicky Morgan and the other Cameroons/Osborneites. There will probably be quite a strong anti-hard Brexit vote from the Tory side if that is what is offered. Others may feel emboldened if the mood in the country has changed. The issue is how that mood is measured. The election and the success of Corbyn should have ripped away the idea that a large chunk of the Brexit vote was actually related to the EU at all. Rather it was a desperate scream of anger from those in need. Someone who offers to solve the real domestic issues will have plenty of freedom to do a soft Brexit from a majority of the population.
If the media go on and on parroting that Brexit is inevitable and anything less would be betrayal then it could be missing the real mood in the country.
Were it not for Corbyn’s ambiguous position on Brexit, we’d have a Tory government right now much more empowered to implement its nasty legislative agenda and take us into hard Brexit territory than the current ‘coalition of chaos’
I’d rather we didn’t leave the EU full stop, but we are where we are, and any party taking the position that current freedom of movement rules are an acceptable response to the Brexit referendum is going to get punished at the ballot box in the event of a general election in the near future.
But now it’s tme to get off the fence
It would gave been better if he’d done so in March 2016, of course
I agree – get the hell out of the EU neoliberal baskett case and use our own currency to create:
1. Jobs
2. Training
3. Green infrastructure
4. Nationalised utilities without the EU laws forcing market competition.
5. Get the price of housing down by providing much more social alternative.
The the EU countries being denuded of their wealth by a rentier EU whose social policies fly in the face of the fiscal ones will see what can be done when you have your own currency. Britain could lead the way on this -any temporary inflation of imports would be more than compensated by wage increases and rent/ mortgage reductions.
We can do all that with in the Norway model
So your problem is?
I don’t think that SM and CU are off the table either – the problem is they are being spurned by Davis.
All of which confirms my two greatest fears:
(a) that May deliberately intends to go for the ‘off the cliff’ option (aided and abetted by Labour) which she will blame on EU intransigence (it is hard to read the ‘negotiation’ strategy in any other way).
(b) the long-term damage to democracy and UK politics caused by us being forced ‘off the cliff’ when a large section of the population has no meaningful representation in parliament.
Agreed
Agreed again but let’s not forget that the one, given a bit of a move back in time, that would be in the Tower awaiting execution for treason would be Cameron.
I agree that the phrase “exact same benefits” is silly, but I suspect Corbyn and McDonnell’s position isn’t as fuzzy headed as you make out. Their preference for “tariff free access” to the single market over membership doesn’t really make sense unless you assume they have objections to some of the rules governing it. It might be your judgement those could be worked around, but they might have a different analysis–and might prefer not to have to resort to workarounds. I think it would be more productive to write something about what those issues might be, rather than just assuming they’re total numpties. We’ve already seen they’re not.
I assume the regulations they are concerned about are not the ones governing free movement. In fact, I think they should concede that, and in a way they already have. Sure Corbyn always says “free movement will end” but at the same time he’s said they won’t set arbitrary limits, but will allow in whoever is needed economically–i.e. they will allow market demand to decide. Their alternative strategy, as I was selling it on the door during the election campaign, is to increase the value of British workers by preventing undercutting and improving opportunities for adult education. Given that strategy, extra controls on immigration are redundant, and given that they’ve already said all that quite openly, conceding the need for controls on immigration is politically redundant too, unless you assume a large portion of the electorate is just not paying attention (which is possible, but it’s hardly a noble strategy). So yes, they should be less fuzzy on this front.
On another note, if Chuka Ummuna really wants Labour to clarify their position, or thinks single market membership is compatible with the manifesto program, he should get on the phone to Corbyn, McDonnell and Starmer. But my suspicion is that they are more clued up on the matter than he is.
Perhaps also, given that Labour aren’t involved in the negotiations, and don’t know what the offer is, or what the price of single market membership would be, it makes more sense for them, as potential negotiators, to say something vaguer at the outset like “tariff free access to the single market”, rather than to tie themselves to one particular outcome, single market membership. As single market membership would be one particular form of “tariff free access”, that would leave their options a bit more open for the negotiations themselves.
They have said they want to be in the single market
That’s what the Corbyn motion demands
Without accepting any responsibility
And that’s just irresponsible
Corbyn’s policy is ‘let the market decide?’
As I say often, he and McDonnell are just too right wing
It’s got to be the biggest ‘clusterfxck’ in recent history. Both Labour and the Tories are in disarray, trying to balance party political opportunism with personal principles. Only the SNP and the Green Party seem to offer a consistent and transparent strategy to achieve their publicly stated objectives.
I completely agree with you re. Corbyn – a seasoned campaigner but as yet an untested politician. While he can bask in the glow of recent events, he really needs to sort out his own party before even hinting he’s ready to occupy Number 10. Right now I can’t envisage he’d win a GE if one was forced. As stated above, Labour voters tend to be concentrated in the wrong places for FPTP. And on ‘Brexit’ the LP is between a rock and a hard place. But, sooner than later, he’s going to have to come clean on the party’s LP strategy,in detail. If contributors here are confused, imagine how the rest of the country feels.
For us committed Europeans it’s a disturbing nightmare. Caroline Lucas got it about right. Stay in and deal with the real enemy – Neo-liberalism – from the inside out. Pity she’s such a lone voice almost totally ignored by the media. The Labour Party offers no realistic alternative to the status quo. However clever he is at a popularist level, once younger supporters realise what he’s not able to deliver on his rhetoric, i.e. radical socio-economic change, they might search elsewhere or more than likely abstain. I think they are attracted to ‘integrity’ which is predictably in short supply within the 2 major parties.
The next few years look like being politically the most turbulent we’ve experienced for a very long time. It would be foolish to predict the outcome. Even the suggested, pragmatic models of Norway or Switzerland make little sense for a nation as complex and diverse as the UK. But, as you say, when the chips are down we’re not in much of a position to pick & choose. Can-kicking could be the next Olympic sport.
Apolgies for unstructured rambling … I simply despair of the lack of real leadership on offer to the many, not the few.
The Norway model is no use:
‘And then there’s EU law. To have access to the single market a non-EU country also has to play by single market rules. It is for this reason that Norway implements most EU laws domestically. Yet as a non-EU state it has no influence on shaping those same laws, or the evolution of the single market. Norway has no representation on the European Commission, no European parliamentarians, no spot around the European Council table of ministers.
So: continued payments to EU budget, continued free movement of people, continued application of EU laws but now zero say over the formation of those laws.’
It’s the EU and the in EU law enshrined ECB that is the real clusterf**k here – internally devaluing its own citizens , rentier ripping off the wealth of its members and destroying societies.
Why we are clinging to some stale notion of what the EU stands for that was lost in the late 70’s as neoliberalism took over, I just don’t understand.
Norway is not in the Euro so that blows all your arguments away
I’m totally happy for you to have your principles
Personally I value free movement
I also value people having jobs and enough to make ends meet and that won’t be the case in this country if your principle hold sway
IU hope you can live with that
I agree Simon.
Seems the EU is still regarded as a safe haven of social democracy and the mixed economy when the opposite is the case. The EU is a straightjacked which will oblige previously sovereign nations to sell off the global motherlode of publicly owned assets whilst driving down wages in the advanced member nations.
I don’t get why a nation would commit to all the obligations without going all the way to membership – this is not explained. The position for Norway as an oil exporter is different to that of the UK, which since joining the common market has gone through a huge industrial decline and has run huge trade deficits for decades. Part of that trade deficit is with the EU.
I think this is ridiculous
The EU is changing
And to pretend that it is unidirectional is absurd
But worse, you assume the UK outside the EU will be better when if there were Tory governments it would be much worse
And I call the deeply irresponsible
Yup, I agree re any GE that might be called.
There’s a ‘narrative’ being established that Corbyn has the ‘momentum’ and would be ‘bound to win if there was another GE soon’.
But in reality you cannot take voters for granted.
It’s at least as likely (as beleaguered as the Tories seem) that they would change leader before it and sweep to (an apparently unlikely) victory. For a recent-ish example of how you can never be sure what the voters do see 1990 poll tax riots and how, only a little over 24 months later, Major won against all the odds. It didn’t even hurt him (enough, anyway) that he’d been Chancellor in 1990.
1974 also shows there is at least as good a chance of the incumbent increasing its lead in the election of the same year (albeit the situation isn’t exactly the same, given Lab weren’t the government before Feb ’74).
So, yeah, you couldn’t rule out Corbyn snatching a win from an early election. But you can never be certain that the voters will play to the ‘narrative’ either.
Why don’t the Labour party be really radical and say we will stay in the EU and fight from within, instead of pissing outside? At least we in Scotland have another option, though whether the majority will be brave enough I don’t know.
I wish Labour would follow the SNP model
Labour, and in particular Corbyn, had the chance(still might have) to forge alliances with SNP, Greens, Clwyd Cymru and even the Lib Dems. A real chance to show an alternative alliance that can work together and dash Tory hopes and keep us in Europe.
Sadly the Labour ‘big beasts’ still want to play two party politics, I’m not sure they’ll learn.
Tribalism is their biggest weakness
Ummuna had previously written in prospect that Britain “should be prepared to leave the single market in order to have a populist crackdown on immigration”. So this was not about principle. I very rarely would recommend something in Prospect but this article is well argued. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-chuka-amendment-would-have-hindered-labour-on-brexit
I agree with Richard Murphy’s argument that Corbyn is playing “Fudge Politics” on Brexit and he’s also doing the same on government spending declaring in mindless “fallacy of composition” style the UK government must balance its books like a household on current spending but not on capital spending. I don’t buy the argument that most journalists, politicians and voters are “amateurish” in their understanding of economics and the country’s monetary system so “Fudge Politics” are justified. Such “amateurism” has to be confronted at some stage otherwise the nation continues to shoot itself in the foot. The danger is “Fudge Politics” leads onto to the anti-democratic process argument “dictatorship of the proletariat” can only happen by a vanguard leading that proletariat!
The UK is a laughing stock of the world as a result of Brexit as it clearly shows that the Tories think that they can break European unity of the rest of EU-27 in agreeing a Free Trade deal without freedom of movement. Fostering the free movement of persons has been a major goal of European integration since the 1950s(see: Maas, Willem, 2007, Creating European Citizens. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield). For the rest of Europe, the way European integration is taught in schools and the way it’s presented is NOT a free trade area, but a peace treaty after the WWII when rampant nationalism, fascism and also the threat of communism on the other side created the 4 freedoms. Violating them means giving in to nationalistic and fascist tendencies. By the time the UK joined the EU in 1973, it was sold by Thatcherites as a huge Free Trade Area as an EEC on economic grounds (not peace and unity any more). The same argument repeated by Dave Cameroon in the EU Referendum campaign on the economic benefits of the EU (rather than a peaceful co-existence being a the core). Such a vision of the EU is reductionist, and harmful of wider social, economic rights of all citizens of EU countries. Now if the UK genuinely does not want to have anything to do with the way the rest of Europe settled the WWII, and deals with rising nationalism and fascism, then it can choose another direction with Brexit – but I doubt that any other option will be given apart from accepting the 4 freedoms (Norway, Switzerland), or not accepting them and reverting to the WTO (or WTO with a few concessions). When that is put to a 2nd referendum, I suspect the UK will accept to rather stay in the Single Market. Then if you stay in the Single Market, why not be a member of the entire EU (Norway opposes the EU due to fisheries, and having to give lots of oil revenue, Switzerland has so many referenda that it’s impossible to be a member of any organisation).
I think what you’re calling “fantasy politics” is actually called “politics.” For example, it was bad politics for Umunna to forward an amendment that could never pass, would undermine Labour’s deliberately equivocating position on Brexit, and would create chaos again for Labour. He was doing precisely what Blair suggests: put aside party politics and work across parties. But the truth is that the Labour Party is the only way we’re going to get progressive change or the hope of a better Brexit in the UK, and for that reason, he should have left the amendments alone and let Labour get on with its own amendment, the one you’re calling “fantasy.” Richard Murphy, you’re a tax expert, not a politician. I don’t think you understand how politics works.
I see
That’s why I teach in a department of politics
OK, I get it
I didn’t think you were doing much teaching these days. What is it? One lecture once a week for one term? I think angelina jolie does more hours a year than that.
I teach 40 hours a year
Which is high for a one day a week teaching contract
80% of my time is research focused
40 hours a year? A week’s lecturing. Well done. And if that’s 20% then your year’s work is 200 hours? Nice job if you can get it. How much does that pay then. And a free posh job title bunged in as well.
You clearly know nothing about universities and university teaching
Well I’m just a working class bloke. No need to talk down to me. Like they say, toffs and profs always talk about us workers but it’s like we are something to be studied and told what to do.
I have no idea who you are, and why should I?
But you chose to come here and criticise me and then say when I point out some facts that I am talking down to you
I did no such thing. I just pointed out the realities of my contract and of university teaching
But you chose to be rude
It won’t happen again
Why are you so convinced JC is the new messiah? He’s knocking on now and has been an MP for many years. He sat through the terrible Blair years we went in to Iraq, when Labour embarrassed capitalism with all its excesses, he let Brown bail out the banks with not one banker being brought to justice, he did nothing when Occupy were knocking on the doors of St Pauls, he let uncontrolled immigration occur at levels previously never seen in the UK, he let social mobility and inequality worsen and he had nothing to say about the property market, no comment about second homes, BTL and foreign ownership of UK property. He was never selected for promotion from the back benches.
So why is he so great?
Are you serious ? The purging of New Labour goes on apace and for all Jeremy’s popularity he has yet to come produce a five, six, seven point plan – aka ‘ the vision ‘. You can buy one , so-called, but what happens when that one and the one after it and the one after that also fail. The fearful symmetry of the Tories is conditioned by money .
You hi the pint very well
The neoliberal element has to go. But there has to be come thing else. If I am honest Corbynommucs did that to some extent. Right now that is so badly needed and the coherence is not there.
It seems to me quite clear that the Labour leadership want out of the EU and nothing to do with the halfway houses that would prevent implementation of the Labour manifesto.
Free competition rules would prevent the re-nationlisation of the railways and the privatised elements of the former NHS. State subsidy rules would prevent meaningful industrial strategy. If Thatcher had not close down our coal industry the EU rules would have.
The requirement for free movement of capital would deprive any future government of an important economic lever and encourage the continued migration of what is left of our industrial base.
Return to monetary sovereignty will enable a future government to reflate the economy in the deflationary environment to follow the next financial crash. The alternative is for government to become yet more enslaved by the financial sector.
I have yet to hear from EU enthusiasts why they are so attached to our trade deficit with the EU.
When the EU has a uniform rate of corporation tax in the interest of fair competition it might be an organisation worth joining. Likewise when it dispenses with the up-ratchet on VAT, or imposes a uniform minimum wage. However I expect it to disintegrate long before hell freezes over.
Oh dear – I think Corbyn is indulging in fantasy politics because the Tories are. (And this is surely the approach on the deficit too?)
The idea of not being in the customs union but having exactly the same access as we have have now is, I’m pretty sure, a David Davis quote. So they’ve purloined his arch Brexiteer line whilst probably doubting he’ll ever get it.
When he doesn’t they can then say that Brexit doesnt’t work.
And – importantly – they won’t own it.
If you are right and JC and JM are/used to be? in favour of Brexit they can at least see how the negotiations pan out before nailing their colours firmly to the mast. When it doesn’t work (as it surely won’t) they will have a better chance of taking their own Brexit voters with them – and with very limited damage when they can show it would make people poorer.
I don’t think that’s a fantasy. I think that would help to win an election.
I simply do not agree.
The Labour stance is, I believe, perfectly balanced. Having spoken to my (very active, remain) Labour MP last night, seen her letter to constituents on the issue etc it is clear Labour is taking the only stance possible *at this stage*.
They want the same benefits as we currently have. That’s the goal. How we achieve that is open and recognizes the negotiation process will make it clear if it is possible. If the only way to get the exact same benefits is to remain full members of the SM and CU, then that is what they will do.
There is a slim chance they could get a bespoke FTA for same benefits with some slight changes to movement and outside of the SM rules (rules that could be problematic for future socialist policies if they change). I accept this is a very very slim chance and there would need to be something the UK gives in return, The amendment was enough to box the government into a corner over this issue without committing Labour to a stance that may upset many Leave voters and provide unhelpful headlines, letting the Tories off the hook who can turn around and blame Labour for the soft Brexit we end up with. Most of us know SM membership is pretty certainly the only way we will achieve the same benefits, so there was no one to insist on SM membership.
Right now, the polls aren’t changing enough. The process of leaving needs to continue for a while. This narrowed the goals in a reasonable way. It forces the conservatives into a soft Brexit and avoids a hard brexit.
The nation is still divided. The process of “negotiation” will soon make it clear what is, and isn’t, possible. The electorate needs to go on a journey alongside the government, not be dictated to. That will be politically disastrous for parties seen to be forcing that.
Umanna’s amendment would only pass with Tory rebels coming on side. None did. None would right now, they’re in survival mode for their party. The Tories WIlL start to rebel and split, of that I’m sure, and Labour needed to keep their powder dry until that happens. It won’t be long.
All this has done is undermine the labour leadership by confusing the electorate. It has weakened Labour. They were treading carefully, in opposition, aware that there could be an election anytime soon and their stance makes complete sense to me, as a remainer.
My apologies delay in replying: was quite literally exhausted yesterday
The difference is of perspective. What makes sense for Labour may not make sense fir the country
My interest is the country, not Labour, and from that perspective Labour git this wrong. When Laboyr stops playing tribal politics and thinks of the country it wishes to govern it may win. But that’s not yet, I fear, if it continues like this.m
You have proved by your previous predictions that you have no clue as to what it takes to win. On the basis of that empirical evidence, your present view shows that Labour is right.
Thank you for those kind words Nora
What you seem not to be aware of is that I am not oin Labour, d not exists to support it, and if it does the wrong thing says so just as I am willing to say when it gets it right
Of course I don’t always get things right
But at least I am neither blinkered or rude
Of course, with politics, we cannot assume the politicians are devoid of dupliciity (in the sense of at least one meaning can be attributed to certain words), sophistry (the intent to deceive) or worse.
One fact of the matter is that the UK/EU membership question existed long before any soundbite of “Brexit” (which means Brexit, apparently) was coined.
Secondly, in the 2014 EU parliamentary elections, the UK opted to elect 24 UKIP MEPs, 20 Labour MEPs, 19 Conservative, 3 Green, 2 SNP and just one Liberal Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)
Prior to that, the Conservative Party opted to leave the relative centrist EPP EU group, and move right.
A serious question : is it possible that the UK referendum is just the final straw, and the EU has decided the UK is out, as it appears to be unable to grasp the concept of cooperation with other European countries?
It certainly seems the game of poker is drawing to a close, and exactly what cards are being held will be revealed.
Bluffing with 3 knaves and a ex-queen May seems a deeply stupid gamble, unless you don’t care about losing.
I get no impression anywhere that anyone in the EU wants the UK out
I respect your writing, and mostly agree with what you write,but can I ask you to please consider what you have said now,before and how that relates to Umanna current position.
In a previous piece, titled :What-now-for-labour-and-the-left you wrote:
“So Labour must unite. It is a left of centre party now. That debate has to be over.And if it is the case then the in-fighting (and there has been a lot of it) has to end. In particular the party machine, which has fought Jeremy Corbyn from the day he won, has to stop doing so, starting today.The result must be that Labour starts speaking with a single voice.
“What the left has to do is teach the world to sing a new economic song”
However, Umanna in 2015 completely rejected ‘teaching the world a new economic song’. He said:
“As painful as it is, the claim that Labour spent too much and “maxed out the credit card” clearly stuck.So, to have any hope of addressing the competence issue, we must strategically address these claims on our fiscal competence”.
“Some economists (I assume this includes you) reject this approach as it would, in their view, necessarily entail simply capitulating at the feet of George Osborne. In their view all we need to do is — in ever more strident and louder terms — shout back at the electorate that it was not profligacy on the part of the last Labour government that caused the crash, but a banking crisis. And, in respect of borrowing, far from acknowledging that we understand the need to reduce national debt, we need to enthusiastically go about making complex arguments for different types of borrowing”
Now here is the important part, Umanna continues to say:
“Well, the harsh political reality is that the electorate rejected this. Screaming “you’re wrong” at the electorate is not a good strategy for a party seeking to win back its trust”
“We must start by meeting the voters where they are, not where we would like them to be”
Its common knowledge, that like the economy, immigration is a problem for Labour during election campaigns, and there is no denying that it continues to cost Labour millions of votes, rightly or wrongly. So on the back of a referendum, were the majority whom voted, did so to leave, and many citing immigration concerns, would it be prudent for the opposition to come out for remaining in the single market and accepting the four freedoms that come with it,including the freedom of movement?
You are sending mixed messages Richard, on the one hand you call for a single united voice, yet you are now praising the likes of Umanna who not so long ago called for a pragmatic approach to fiscal policiy and to a certain extent accepting the need to carry on Osbournes plan. Umanna and Labour know that screaming at the electorate that we must abide by the ‘consequences’ as you say yourself, will be devastating for any party seeking to win an election.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/29/labour-tory-lite-economic-credibility-leadership
Of course I am calling for a single voice
It’s is labour that is failing to supply it because Corbyn will not say what he wants on Brexit
Blame him, not me
I’m clear. I’m also not Labour. But he does not know what he is and is failing the left as a result. And I can and will say so.
Umunna is not my cup of tea. But it least he has a coherent and sensible and electorally attractive policy on this. Corbyn has not
And please read my blog just published
[…] a pretty exhausting week I wrote a blog on Friday about Corbyn and Europe. I am far from alone in pointing out he does not have a coherent policy on the EU. He’s not […]