Barry Gardiner, Labour's shadow trade secretary, has written in the Guardian that:
Most trade agreements arise from a desire to liberalise trade — making it easier to sell goods and services into one another's markets. Brexit will not. Brexit arose from key political, rather than trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget. When negotiations start it will be the first time countries seek a trade agreement with the clear understanding that they are increasing barriers between them.
I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave.
As a consequence he argues the the UK must leave the Single Market and Customs Union, whatever the price.
I confess I find such stupidity (forgive me, but I can't think of a better word) hard to comprehend.
I thought Labour was a party of principle.
I thought it was willing to argue its case against all comers.
I thought it was uncompromising in the pursuit of what it thought to be right.
I thought Labour was internationalist.
I thought it was committed to peace.
I thought it was opposed to was opposed to constraining people on the basis of nationality.
I thought it was cooperative in principle and practice.
I thought it was in favour of redistribution both nationally and internationally.
I obviously thought wrong. What Barry Gardiner reveals are six things.
First, he reveals that Labour will not challenge a Tory policy.
Second, he reveals that Labour will follow the lead of the Daily Mail rather than the will of the people of this country who were not asked whether they wished to leave the Single Market and Customs Union and did not vote for it.
Third, Labour is showing that it will pursue a policy that will harm the prospects of the working people and young of this country, who are its natural supporters, even when it knows that policy is wrong.
Fourth, he reveals that Labour believes it is wrong to argue against a decision made on the basis of deceptions and falsehoods.
Fifth, Labour is showing it will support petty nationalism instead of principles.
Sixth, Labour is showing it will fail its international partners and that it cannot be trusted in this arena.
Or, in summary, Labour is showing it is willing to sell out on its principles rather than argue for what is right.
It's as if they'd said that because most people don't join unions they won't support them any more.
Or that because inheritance tax is undoubtedly unpopular with the Daily Express Labour will never tax wealth.
Or that green policies aren't worth pursuing because some in business are willing to campaign against them and climate change denial always gets a voice on the BBC.
I expect politicians on the left to be principled.
I expect them to argue against the odds, and to say when they think people (especially those motivated by greed and self interest) are wrong.
I expect them to show courage.
I expect them to talk sense, and not make up the sorts of excuses for nonsense that Gardiner does.
And I am reasonably confident that a lot of people agree with me. More than enough, I suspect, to cost a Labour Party pursuing this line a lot of votes.
After all, why would the young vote for a party saying this?
Why will those with international concern have common ground with such a party's cause?
And why will those who lose pay or their jobs thank them for capitulating to the Tories?
What I would like in this country is a genuine left of centre opposition.
I am still waiting for it.
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:
Why will people vote for it? Simples, the alternative is worse.
Latest polling is Labour 43
Tory 41
That’s not a major winning margin
Not with Scotland still in the equation
Hear, hear!
Barry Gardiner says: “Brexit arose from key political, rather than trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget.”
None of that was on the referendum ballot paper. The ballot paper just asked people whether they wanted to remain in the EU or not.
*Any* deal which involves leaving the EU, by definition, “respects the referendum result” – including a Norway-style deal with full access to the single market and membership of the customs union.
What’s actually happening here is that politicians are interpreting the referendum result as a vote for “hard Brexit” when it wasn’t that at all. For example, there was polling last year which showed that a majority of voters *wouldn’t* support a Brexit which reduced living standards. Given that “hard Brexit” is almost certain to do that, it seems clear that the referendum result can’t be interpreted as a vote for hard Brexit.
Maybe it’s time for a referendum on hard or soft Brexit? Or indeed a 3-option referendum with the choices “Remain/Soft Leave/Hard Leave”. On a FPTP basis i.e. the most popular option wins even if it gets <50% of the vote. That would be most amusing 🙂
I agree with all that Howard
Always good to know you’re on the same side
I think this is the problem, the question was so vague, so open ended that it could mean anything. I suspect they have to take a worst case scenario, put a deal on paper that explains the consequences of that worst case and put that to the public. Otherwise it will always be a case of if, but and maybe. Once the extreme bounds are known we can work back from there to something less bad, maybe even remaining
It appears Brexit is the new “labour crashed the economy” problem for Labour.
I.e. something clearly wrong and stupid that they are terrified of standing up to and challenging.
So they just go along with total folly and madness.
Depressing.
Bizarrely this seems to be the case
I know rail nationalisation is easier outside the EU
But it can be done within it too
Rather like QE gets round the rule against central bank lending
I am just not sure what is holding Labour back from being an outright opposition and trying to win the case for a Norwegian deal at least
Am not saying stay in the EU necessarily
But caving in altogether on the basis of the arguments Gardiner uses is not just lame; it’s hopeless
The German railway is government-owned, so why can’t the UK have rail nationalisation too within the EU?
I am told they have to privatise it
There us no chance of that in my opinion
Richard Corbett seems to disagree with the problem of nationalisation, the EU couldn’t care less about it, as long there is a level playing field.
http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/renationalisation-impossible/
“I am still waiting for it.” Don’t hold your breath. I hope you have both longevity and great patience. It’s been a long time since a Labour administration actually believed in and introduced radical socio-economic reform of any significance. I have little faith that a Corbyn administration would be any different. The Labour Party will continue to focus on mitigating the worst effects of Neo-liberalism without having the guts or wisdom to change ‘the system’. I don’t think the majority of English voters want radical change either …. until the quality of their lives becomes so depleted. It’s just a matter of time …..
If Labour don’t rise to the challenges fascists will fill the void, and we all know where that will end up.
Labour will never tax wealth? Maybe for the super rich this will prove true but I don’t see labour saying they will abolish this tax in fact their manifesto said they would reverse the latest one.
Regarding leaving the single market and customs union perhaps you could enlighten me but is it in actually the uks authority to stay in it? Ie having invoked article 50 can the EU insist we leave them?
The tax reference was a parody
And re staying in, that’s down to the negotiation. I think it clear the EU want us in
And candidly, we’re going to have such a long transition we will effectively be in
So let’s be realistic about it
Labour are still caught in a tough spot and will lose support whatever way they turn. Challenge Brexit and will lose working class brexiteers; go along with it and they will lose middle class metropolitan voters. There isn’t an easy choice for them to make, hence they faced 2 ways during the GE. But sitting on the fence isn’t a long term option. Coming down on one side or another will be costly.
I think that at least you have to go with what the great majority of your MP’s, members and supporters want. Labour have long been supportive of the EU and its position during the referendum was emphatically to remain. If the party genuinely believe brexit will be damaging, then it seems to me they are honour bound to challenge it and to make its impact as benign as possible.
All member surveys suggest hard brexit would be deeply unpopular with them
The leadership needs to take note
@Steve H: I agree that Labour is in a tight spot over Brexit, but I believe they are playing it right. It is unlikely that there will be a GE until the Brexit deal is done, so going down the Ref2 (actually 3) will do them no good electorally. And at the end of the day their wonderful manifesto could not be fully implemented within the EU. A decent industrial strategy requires capital controls and what Corbyn has said about free movement of labour is spot on (in agreement with McCluskey).
Any industrial strategy that could not be done in the EU could not be done with tariff free access to the single market either
So Labour is not telling the truth somewhere in that case
In practice a decent industrial strategy is entirely possible within EU law
The view on capital controls does not come from the current Labour Party heirarchy, but from a much wider economic strand. In fact it’s more (true) Keynesian than anything else.
The sooner Labour get off the fence and make a case for either rescinding the referendum result or, at least, opposing hard Brexit, the longer time they will have to convince Labour Brexiteers that a hard Brexit will be an economic disaster. At the moment they a maximum of about 15 months to get the message across and turn public opinion. If they leave it much longer there won’t be time to take any action.
Apart from 2010 I have always voted Labour (I voted Lib-Dem then and have regretted ever since). I won’t vote for a party that doesn’t oppose a hard Brexit.
as soon as they get off that fence, the media attack them and divert attention from the reality of tory brexit. It will happen but it’s a matter of time, they are forcing the focus to be on the extremes of what brexit will be rather than the almost infinite range of possibilities in between, none of which are as good as what we have.
I wish Phillip Hammond was Prime Minister. There I’ve said it, through gritted teeth and with several pegs on my nose. Dear me, what has happened to Labour?
Really? From what I have seen on the news, the EU seems to be happy to be rid of the UK.
That’s not what anyone is telling me in Brussels or any other capital
A major disappointment for one of Labour’s two core groups of supporters (the working class and the metropolitan middle class) was always on the cards following the party’s fudged Brexit position at the general election. Now we know which group is going to be disappointed.
This also explains why it’s going to be hard for Labour to sustain their level of support at 40%.
I agree
But I do not think which group is going to lose out is clear yet
My fear is that if the centre revive around a Norway deal the left will have blown it
Brexit voters will never accept free movement of labour.
And will never accept much that Brexit voters want
That’s what democracy does
But democracy – real democracy – a;ways allows for a process of change and blind faith in a single event does not
I would like to see Corbyn have the guts to try to talk to his Northern working class base about the causes of their hardships. Certainly with all his oratorical flair he could make the case – for instance – that Chinese imports have done more to depress manufacturing than EU directives? That Tory “labour flexibility” has done more to wreck working conditions and wages than Brussels or FoM. I actually find it rather condescending that Labour seem to believe their constituents won’t listen to persuasively argued facts. One message from the referendum was that people felt unheard and uninvolved. Wouldn’t taking the time to address their concerns and trying to actually lead them toward an arrangement more in line with their economic interests go some way to fixing that? Are Labour really buying the hard Leaver/UKIP line that sovereignty means more to the average person than the dosh in their pocket?
It seems that sovereignty does indeed matter more to Barry Gardiner, at least
That’s just my thought. Do Corbyn and co really believe that the EU and migration are the cause of the problems that Brexit voters were concerned about. If not, why do they not as you say have the courage to challenge the arguments of UKIP and the Tories. Going along with those arguments seems to be either cowardly or cynical – or both.
Assuming as I do that the problems are much more deep rooted and closer to home, and that Brexit will just make things worse, Labour Brexiteers stand to get just as much flak as BluKIP Brexiteers as the situation steadily worsens
Clive Lewis recently described the Labour voters from younger voters as being a bit like Facebook ‘likes’ in that they can quickly go elsewhere.
The free movement of, especially, East Europeans is a valid concern here – and so should it be for the East European countries themselves. They have invested a lot in those who we get for free here.
It’s valid concern where I am because there will be no one to do the work whatever the pay rate
I don’t think Barry Gardiner speaks for the Labour Party with these words. This is not going to be the Labour Party’s last word on Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly set out the Labour Party’s priority to put trade and the economics first. Whether this means membership of the single market and customs union or a shadow arrangement which mirrors this in all but name, it is impossible to be certain at this stage, if only because Labour are not at the negotiating table. Labour is quite right to subordinate the issue of Brexit. This is too much for many people, both leavers and remainers, for whom EU membership or not seems like the defining political sine qua non. But this is not the case. Most of the problems we face can be addressed whether or not we are in the EU. That said, of course it is a very important issue, but membership or not should not distract from larger structural reforms which are needed, which can be addressed in different ways in or out.
It sounds exactly like what Corbyn said on Marr
Gardiner isn’t stupid though and he’s talking from the point of Shadow international trade.
Part of putting pressure on the government who after all are the ones who must deliver and thus are the ones who will be judged whether we leave, remain or part leave/remain.
As a remainer and as someone who did some modest campaigning for Labour in the GE, and then joined the party afterwards,I found Gardiner’s article most depressing. What I took to be the previous line that Brexit mustn’t make us worse off, seemed to offer a way back. Hope.
It seems to me we have to start with the assumption that Brexit will happen. But there then seem to me to be two questions.
First, do we go for a hard or soft Brexit? Do you leave the single market and the customs union, or not? What is in our best interests? The answer to that is surely to go for the soft Brexit option.
The second question is to ask if a soft Brexit is to be preferred, what benefits we are getting over full membership. The answer to that is surely not many, but that we actually lose quite a lot. We pay, but we get no say. It’s a pretty dumb deal – although still better than a hard Brexit.
Agree with all that!
Firstly, thanks Richard for pithily and pointedly summarising Labour’s position, as defined by its current leadership. One that alienates me every bit as much as what is spouted by what have become their fellow travellers in UKIP and the Tories
My dark assumptions are that the Tories want to create the worst form of open economy, free of regulation and protection, to be exploited by those with the power and the capital, that will further damage or destroy our public institutions and degrade the lives of most people in the UK. However, Labour as led by Corbyn and his immediate colleagues and supporters, seem to dream of a closed economy, something along the lines of the GDR in the 70’s. We know what failures those kinds of economies have been – economically, socially and politically. Both groups see the EU standing in the way. Not surprising as EU was set up to try and prevent the damage caused by governments of either the far left or far right. That the EU is criticised by both groups suggest that it is doing more right than wrong
Then there is the issue of standing up for the ‘working class’. Is that the working class in London, Bristol and other major cities, who have been the bedrock of the Labour vote but who also mostly voted Remain? People who live in communities with high levels of immigration, but don’t seem to blame ‘others’ for problems with health, education, housing and so on. Or it those who left Labour for UKIP, older, less educated, in areas that actually have low levels of immigration but who choose to blame migrants for their problems, rather than the policies of UK governments. (Check the correlation of UKIP votes with low levels of migration).
To be brutal, looking to the future, that is a diminishing, dying vote, clinging to the past. Labour pandering to those interests, changing its policies to try to attract them in an effort to grab power in the short term, is going to alienate both its future, younger voters and those in the cities, who did not abandon them for UKIP, and who surprisingly enough are not all middle class. A quick perusal of the poverty figures for London boroughs will soon destroy the stereotype.
On a lighter note, maybe the Daily Mash has worked it out…
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/corbyn-trying-to-return-to-cult-following-%E2%80%A8-20170725132739
Thanks Robin
I agree
I have to agree with John C – it’s the larger structural reforms that are the key – not EU membership per se – and I think, Richard, that your conclusions about what Gardiner’s comments mean for Labour as a whole are more than a little hyperbolic.
Labour can still be committed to peace, internationalism, redistribution and cooperation within or outside the EU (whose commitment to such noble ideals often appears to go no further than the member countries anyway).
FWIW I happen to believe that the prospects of Labour making such transformations in the next decade are actually better outside the EU and they are certainly very much higher then they were prior to the referendum.
About 70% of Labour supporters voted Remain
Amongst new Labour voters this June I suspect it would be much higher
I suspect they would very much agree with my view
But I am not a member of Labour. I am just an observer
I believe you are right, Richard. I am the only member I know who voted Leave here. But that doesn’t make them right;o)
@Carol. You are not alone. There are lots of us and many can make a good case for leaving the EU without even mentioning immigration.
If I was a Tory MP I’d be looking for a centrist soft Brexit leader who could woo opposition MPs which could leave Corbyn and his shadow cabinet as part of a rump with the Tory right. Consider the news today that BMW will build the electric Mini at Cowley. If it emerges they won that on the back of private government assurances we remained in the customs union (also given to Toyota and Nissan) what complete chumps Gardiner and Corbyn are going to look.
Nowhere in the article does it mention the 48% who voted remain or what they want.
48.1% voted to remain, which includes the SM+CU. That means that if just 2% points of the 51.9% voted to leave the EU but remain in the SM+CU then there is a majority to stay in these. Unfortunately Gardiner does not share with us how he can be so certain that no more than 2% points of the leave voters wanted this option.
If there is such a thing as the ‘will of the people’, and if it can be determined by the result of the referendum, then ‘the will of the people’ is not that we leave the EU but that we are roughly half in and half out of the EU.
I don’t understand why the majority of Labour and Tory MPs are acting as though the votes of the 52% are now worth 100% and the votes of the 48% are now worth 0%. Why can’t the votes of the 52% be worth 52% and the votes of the 48% be worth 48%?
If MPs truly wished to enact ‘the will of the people’ they would come up with a package that leaves us 48% inside of the EU and 52% outside of the EU.
Given all of the opt-outs that the UK has secured, this is pretty close to what we have now — which means that what we have now, which has quite a lot for both the 52% and the 48%, is actually a lot closer to ‘the will of the people’ than the Brexit being proposed, which gives something to the 52% but nothing for the 48%.
And there is something sinister about how MPs keep talking about ‘the will of the people’ when they are actually only referring to 52% of voters, as if the other 48% aren’t really ‘the people’ and their ‘will’ is valueless.
About 70% of Labour voters voted Remain
I think it was 66% but not sure anyway point still stands.
But – and admittedly this is subjective – I believe many voted for remain and reform when they ticked remain.
Significant? IMO yes, because it was not an option but nevertheless many Eurosceptics plumped for it in hope that Corbyn would influence a Remain victory as a better option to a UKIP-formulated Leave.
In my view the Remain camp assumes its narrative is universally backed but I see this far from a valid assumption. Caught between a barking-right Leave and a neoliberal Remain many plumped for Remain solely on a Hobson’s Choice that was swung by fear towards Remain.
Not going to get into debate about(say) single market other than to say while many Labour may have voted keenly for it many may have voted not giving too hoots about it. And many on the pendulum in between.
It is too much too ask for this aspect to get a hearing when political infighting drives a lot of the debate rather than the issue. And even for those driven by the issue it is still invariably overlooked simply because it suits the mission.
I voted remain and reform
What I know for sure is that did not mean hard Brexit and economic collapse
This mess is what you get when you don’t have proper democracy (deliberative with citizens in charge) but have self-serving representatives who represent nothing but the dogma of their parties and their narrow sectional interests, mainly those of the rich and powerful who have captured much of the state apparatus, rather than represent the interests of the citizenship as a whole. These are politicians who will not lead, who will not face down the racists, the xenophobes, the Little Englanders.
The idea that the referendum was democracy in action is ludicrous. The whole campaign was an exercise in lying, and the best lies won. A brave politician would have said this is madness, an act of monumental self-harm and we are not going to be bound by it.
Sorry to be a pedant but with all the talk of Single Market and the Customs Union, can I just say that a country can only be in the “Customs Union” if it is a full member of the EU (under treaty rules laid down in 1957).
But it can be in Customs Union with the EU
And countries are
My view is that in this new ‘interregenum’ Labour just needs to stick together and hold a line of some sorts – stop disagreeing with each other. By all means disagree with the Tories on everything else but be very careful about BREXIT and stop publically disagreeing with each other.
Why? Because we are living in age of unreason. I mean c’mon! We are in an embarrassing and dangerous pickle because of Tory misrule.
I still think that Labour want to be seen to be euro-sceptic because that is close to the prevailing sentiment as portrayed by a biased media.
Imagine what would happen to Labour if they started to advocate another referendum? Or staying in?
They’d be crucified and I feel that every progressive on this blog knows this in their heart of hearts.
So Labour are playing cat and mouse with BREXIT as the Tories have bribed the DUP in order to get a wafer thin majority to keep the Tories on life support.
The focus should be on getting the Tories removed from power.
Only if I was in power would I reveal my hand on this one and I’d do it as quickly as possible.
But there is also a case to be made for leaving and then enabling those who voted to leave to see what they have done. A painful option – but seeing queues of lorries at Dover and shortages in the shops and the bodies of dead immigrants washed up on our beaches as our ‘borders’ are no longer in France anymore might be essentially the only way to see the error of the whole thing.
I’d rather avoid that
Yes – and I can see why. It is a pity that many do not so that the cat mouse games must go on I’m afraid.
Hello Richard,
This debate is a little confusing to me.
You mention what it shouldn’t be doing but I am not clear on how to turn this list into what they should be doing. For example I can’t see the specific instance of Labour not being a party of principle that you are referring to. (I am not saying there isn’t one. There may be many)
I would appreciate it if you could list in simple terms what you think Labour should be saying and why ?
This is probably a lot of work but would be a very helpful and informative blog on this important but confusing and complex subject.
Ron
I’ll see what I can do
The UK is a political duopoly. Nobody seriously believes that any other party could win a general election so the overwhelming majority of people vote for the part of the duopoly they dislike the least. When both parts of the duopoly advocate similar stances on so many issues, what choice does the electorate have? The UK is no longer properly functioning democracy.
I think that the real issue which this reveals and is the source of my disappointment with Labour