Labour may be close to endorsing remaining in the EU customs union. We will know tomorrow. If it does many - including the vast majority in the business community will be relieved. And, if Labour then sides with Tory rebels on this issue, the government could be defeated and a softer Brexit than they intend could be delivered as the will of parliament, which is wholly consistent with the referendum result. For many, including those in Ireland to whom I referred yesterday, this will be a step in the right direction.
But there are those who know that this playing with trade conditions is incomprehensible to many. As my long term collaborator in the Green New Deal, Colin Hines, put it in a post on Brave New Europe recently:
Labour's concentration on the effects on trade of leaving the EU drips with the minutiae of the Custom's Union and Single Market and as such is incomprehensible to the majority.
Colin, with whom despite our friendship, I do not always agree, goes further:
Its time Labour abandoned these public stances and instead publicly embraced a No Brexit approach.
I do not think that possible without a second referendum. Where I do agree with Colin is that to make any change possible Labour has to tackle the issue that staying close to the EU necessarily requires be confronted, which is migration. As Colin says:
[S]uch pleas have no chance of electoral success unless also included is a rethink of the freedom of movement of people, the issue so often skirted around. This in turn will require eliciting help from those in Europe who don't want the UK to leave. Putting some limits to the free movement of people would anyway be popular in much of Europe, as it would allow each member state to limit the flow of people to the number which it really needs.
He adds:
[T]he plausibility of such an approach came from Richard Corbett MEP, leader of the Labour Party in the European Parliament. He has made clear that when it comes to EU freedom of movement, this is not an unconditional right. There are conditions that Britain could start enforcing if it chose, such as the need for EU migrants to have a job after a reasonable period of time, normally considered to be three months, or be self-sufficient and not a burden on the public exchequer. His contention is that other EU Member States ask thousands of people to leave their country every year. It is Britain's failure to use such safeguards to the full and, where appropriate, send back those with no right to remain, which has created the impression that free movement is a free-for-all.
Another example previously cited in Brave New Europe is the European Commission's recent tightening of its rules on access to social security. It has said that member states may decide not to grant social benefits to mobile citizens who are economically inactive, meaning those who are not working nor actively looking for a job, and do not have the legal right of residence on their territory. The EU Commission's vice-president Jyrki Katainen has talked of understanding the “unwanted consequences” of freedom of movement.
Few on the left like to address this issue. Indeed, Colin has been banned from the New Economics Foundation organised NEON network for simply raising the issue, which I think absurd, because the fact is that there are concerns on migration; they did motivate the choice of many in the Brexit; the UK has always had a migration policy; there have always been conditions attached to migration; and deciding how to address this issue has then to be part of informed political debate.
I have no desire to see people who have long contributed to the UK expelled from this country as it seems our current government does now. That is the pathway to massive social injustice. On the other hand there is no right to free movement in the EU that carries with it a right to claim the benefits of citizenship in any country in which a person decides to reside. There is only a right to work wherever a person chooses, and that is something very different, but which (as has so often been the case) has been improperly administered by the UK making it systems much more open to abuse than they need be.
I suspect Colin is right: I think there would be an appetite to look at this issue in Europe. Planned migration is essential for well being. That has to be said loud and clear. But the word 'planned' is a key part in that statement and it's entirely appropriate, and wholly consistent with long term actual left of centre practice, to say so.
Labour needs to embrace the customs union.
But it has to also make clear it embraces people's concerns. It can do that and stay firmly within the EU's boundaries. It'c challenge is to find a way to communicate that possibility now. It's relevance may be dependent upon its ability to do so.
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:
I do hope Jeremy Corbyn has something of substance to say tomorrow.
Conservative party shilly-shallying is getting to be really rather tedious.
I’m expecting to be disappointed, but….. in the meantime I suppose we can enjoy hope for a little longer.
I think that you raise a crucial point here.
For Labour to overlook it may be detrimental to us all in the long run.
I agree with Andy Crow s aspirations
‘I have no desire to see people who have long contributed to the UK expelled from this country as it seems our current government does now. ‘
There’s nothing I’ve seen which supports the suggestion that the government wishes expulsion of EU residents from the UK. Do you have any citation?
The government is expelling all sorts of people right now
Including EU residents, to whom it is also denying healthcare
Try reading the news
I have read the news. The governments of all countries expelled lots of people.
Can you give an example of where an EU citizen resident in the UK has been expelled just because they are EU citizens, and for no other reason, and/or where an EU citizen resident in the UK has been denied healthcare?
Every statement I’ve seen from UK government is ‘we want you to stay after Brexit’ and there are discussions with the EU as to the exact process.
There are examples of nonEU citizens being expelled for various reasons (criminals, overstay of Visas etc, false asylum seekers etc) but non that I can see that are expelled just because they are EU citizens.
Just Google it
The Guardian has reported quite a number of cases
Try:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/brussels-uk-deported-eu-citizens
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-deported-european-commission-investigation-a7976236.html
Having supported a friend who was being treated appallingly by the Home Office – 20 years married to UK citizen, child, being instructed to leave the country – I have no doubt about the aggressive behaviour and culture of May’s Home Office. Went to the press and BBC and they suddenly backed off.
Membership of a customs union cannot in itself bring a frictionless Irish border (see the Turkey-Bulgaria border), this can only be delivered by membership of EEA (see Norway – Sweden border) Nor can it deliver easy solutions on migration but EEA can. It can address restrictions to freedom of movement issues whilst at the same time easing the concerns around the current migrants.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/opinion/house-commons/91774/stephen-kinnock-mp-european-economic
It seems to me that other than giving Labour a point of difference on Brexit to the Tories, calling for a customs union delivers very little else.
I suspect you are right
It is at best a step in the right direction
The EU and the UK would not be in this situation if the EU had abided and enforced its own laws. Eg the Dublin agreement about processing at the first country the person enter the EU.
Germany ran a coach and horses through that with Merkels ego trip of welcoming a million to try to out do her mentor Helmut Kohl.
The financial stability pact with severe penalties- coach and horses by France and Germany who then both don’t get fined.
Accepting refugees and quotas unless of course you live in Luxembourg that is. Junkers home town.
The most opaque central bank in the world of which all information and staff is off limits in law and personnel.
I agree that the UK should of enforced EU powers however the assumptions of 20 years ago are wholly outdated as now with email on phones, gangs trained in exploiting the system, phone banking, the once strong assumptions of a person tied to a property and it’s landline phone is no longer valid.
How then do you track them?
The trade part was fine for all Europeans and the Europeans all voted ,when given a chance, against what we have now. Did the EU abide by its people or overruled the ‘peasants and inferiors ‘?
It is a fact that the EU is not always good at enforcing its own rules. Almost invariably this is because wisdom prevails, and it is seen that a situation has arisen where it is best to lay the rule aside. All good rulemaking follows this principle: English common law most certainly does.
In that situation I’m not sure what you’re trying to say
Notwithstanding the fact that it’s the free movement of capital that should be the first of the 4 freedoms that Corbyn should be ruling out in his speech today, you are right to highlight the extra thought that is required on immigration.
Part of this — which always seems to go unmentoined by the pro-European left (and particularly those in the Labour party) are the deleterious effects of the EU’s current model of migration on the country of origin of the migrant in question.
It seems that the effects on these countries go much deeper than just a loss of talent and experience when people leave to go and do jobs that typically do not require their expensively developed skils anyway. If Bill Black is to be believed (and he usually is) the endemic corruption in Latvia (that has seen their banks funneling money to the North Koreans to perfect their nuclear arsenal) can in part be put down to this loss of these very decent people.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/02/bill-blackonce-poster-child-austerity-latvia-becomes-hotbed-corruption.html
Richard,
I think that we are all worrying over what can no longer be helped: whether we have a hard Brexit or a soft one is not in our gift. If the EU had felt they could compromise with the UK’s concerns over freedom of movement, they would have done so during the hapless David Cameron negotiations; such a compromise has now been definitively ruled out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43175201.
So the choice now is hard Brexit or no Brexit, where no Brexit means our political class act as if a referendum has no meaning. What a tough choice!
As usual Cofe you are wrong. Of course there is an option available to us. What I point out is that within the EU’s rules there is plenty of freedom of movement which the UK has never chosen to use. Your suggestion confirms your usual willingness to comment without, apparently, having ever read what I had written.
I I’m sure you are right to be concerned about the immigration issue. Labour has studiously avoided dealing with this and yet it cannot simply be ignored. Tory politicians and indeed the vast majority of the public never get immersed in the details of policy. In one area, however, there has been a substantial negligence by the Tories and that is immigration. The regulations governing EU migration are very much stricter than most people realise. They restrict significantly most of the capacity of EU residents to benefit from British social provision. Despite that there are virtually no regulations actually being enforced. For example, working EU citizens are allowed in but non-economically active EU citizens can only stay longer than three months if they have sufficient finance and take out a comprehensive sickness insurance policy. Benefit/welfare tourism is illegal and EU citizens who have not been working have no rights to benefits. No attempts are made to implement these current rules by the UK government.
Labour should simply respin these policies as a new Labour initiative. The fact that they are entirely compatible with existing treaties would not be appreciated very widely.
You can read much more about the details of this here: http://outsidethebubble.net/2018/02/26/labour-can-substantially-restrict-freedom-of-movement-under-current-arrangements/ but it could be a relatively straightforward way of dealing with this tricky issue.
Agreed
Including the vital point that there is deliberate failure to enforce rules and that has been catastrophic
Absolutely right Craig. Both major parties have been equally disingenuous in pretending that nothing can be done about immigration without leaving the EU altogether. Given the Home Office’s enthusiasm for deporting people you’d have thought they’d have grabbed the opportunity to use laws that already exist.
All of which makes me equally dubious about the agendas of both parties. Both seem to be wanting to pander to the UKIP tendency rather than have a more honest debate about the merits and demerits of migration, and what could be done about it within the existing structures
Agreed
A I have stated repeatedly Corbyn is a Bennite whose doctrine on the EU is not far removed from Brexiteers which is shown by Corbyn’s agency in passing article 50 and various other votes required to support it. Whether he will support the EU customs union as it is or some re-negotiated form is a moot point. Any re-negotiation will be as nebulous as May’s “friction less” trade whatever that means. Trade even by agreement is never ever frictionless. It is similar in theoretical concept to perpetual motion which never works in practice. Just more meaningless rhetoric.
Why the outcome of the referendum is allowed to stand and be questioned is beyond comprehension in view of the activities of Brexiteer’s using psycops companies funded by right wing billionaires with direct links to both US and UK security services. Their use by such services is designed to mould and shape public opinion through use of propaganda and “alternative facts” and mass data from Google Facebook etc. having first identified those areas of mass concern. It is not intended to give a balanced outlook on which to make a rational decision. You have to ask why no one is questioning such antics.
Migration from the EU is another smoke screen supported by “alternative facts” The EU directive on movement states that people may
“Live in another EU country for longer than 3 months subject to certain conditions, depending on their status in the host country. Those who are employed or self-employed do not need to meet any other conditions. Students and other people not working for payment, such as those in retirement, must have sufficient resources for themselves and their family, so as not to be a burden on the host country’s social assistance system, and comprehensive sickness insurance cover”.
The ONS estimate that in 2016, 9.2 million people living in the UK were born abroad. Of these, 3.5 million were from countries now in the EU. 47% had definite jobs, 16% came looking for work, 12% came to join someone 20% came to study and 5% no reason given. 5.6 million were from non-EU countries of those their breakdown as noted before is 22%, 9%, 20%, 46% and 4%. EU immigration is now falling as economy slows and Brexit fears take affect. Non EU immigration remains is rising.
HMRC released a report in May 2016, which said that recently arrived EEA nationals received £0.56 billion in tax credits and Child Benefit in the 2013/14 fiscal year but paid £3.11 billion in income taxes and national insurance contributions.
EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU who are staying legally in an EU country to bring their non-EU family members to live with them and to become long-term residents. Ireland and the United Kingdom choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies.
What has this to do with Corbyn being a Bennite?
Or vice versa?
Simple. He does not believe in the EU or its institutions and as Tony Benn stated so often and so long he wanted to withdraw on democratic sovereignty grounds. If Corbyn did believe in the EU he would support the liberals approach. His latest conversion is in support of “a customs union” not necessarily as it exists and with the proviso, which will effectively veto the whole thing, that the UK would retain “a say” in how EU trade deals are negotiated yet still be outside and no longer an EU member. Not going to happen and about as useful as May’s “frictionless trade”
He upholds the referendum verdict because he is a Bennite when there is clear evidence of improper use of external foreign companies employed to engineer the result. He does not even support the notion that the outcome of Brexit negotiations should be put to the electorate for ratification. His current stance will see a Hard Brexit despite current rhetoric which is a price Tony Benn and his acolytes were always willing to pay.
Corbyn is fully aware and briefed about the migration stats. yet does little or nothing to dispel much of the erroneous interpretation an misinformation generated. In everything he does with reference to the EU and Brexit it always appears to be more in line with long held beliefs and distrust of the EU than promoting an active partnership or membership and that is certainly in line with the Bennite tradition.
Vince Cable says that when he was in office, several studies of the effects of immigration came over his desk but Cameron would not let them be published. Were they that bad OR showed not a major problem and he’d have to show some leadership instead of pandering to the tabloids OR it revealed the Tories weren’t enforcing the rules.
Surely someone has leaked the contents?
Would be good
If the ECB had been an MMT bank it might have funded local housing and other projects -a variation of your green quantitive easing- which would have employed people locally and there would have been less reason for migration across the continent.
Some of the money could have been used for training some of the unemployed here.
In effect delivering the JG….
We call it a carbon army in the Green New Deal
an Stevenson says:
“If the ECB had been an MMT bank it might have funded local housing and other projects -a variation of your green quantitative easing-…….”
Surely the point is that the ECB is an MMT bank. It produced vast amounts of cash as required to rectify the mess if the 2008 chaos by digital printing.
The problem is not with the MMT process which we now know works very well indeed, but with what the money is allocated to. All the QE money issued by ECB and BofE was shoved into the top of the economy on the (unbelievably stupid) pretext that this would then be made available to stimulate the economy. Trickle down theory in fact – which we all have known for decades is pure BS.
The government knows damn fine that ‘austerity’ is completely bogus and no more than an excuse to pursue a policy of further stripping down public assets and flogging them off cheap to private sector ownership.
The economic case for the MMT process of behaviour of fiat currency is now well proven, it is the political aspect of applying this knowledge to the benefit of the whole of society which is the on-going battle.
And yes, we know it has inflationary influence. We only have to take note of the rampant inflation in property and stock market prices, boardroom and celebrity remuneration to see how this works in a situation where the inflation is not ameliorated by taxation.
QED, I suggest. Job done.
All we need now are some sensible, and humane policies.
well Andy it needs to be more explicit. if it were, it might repair the damage done to the perception that the euro is responsible for the recession in Europe.
Hold your horses Richard,
The very well informed and formerly remain voting journalist Ambrose-Evans Pritchard (who had a spell working Brussels reporting on the EU) has a piece published today critiquing the policy announcement. It may not be as much of a cakewalk as you suggest (or do you prefer staying in the Single Market and Customs Union)?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/26/corbyns-customs-union-traps-uk-economic-limbo-without-solving/
I have written a blog – about to go live – saying much the same
This is a start, not an end