I have been challenged to say what I think Labour should be doing regarding the EU, given that many Lexiteers seem too think that they hold the only rational position on this issue, even if it amounts to running away.
It so happens I know Jeremy Corbyn is addressing EU socialists in December so let me suggest what I think he should be saying to them.
Corbyn should firstly recognise that he would love a general election - but that he may not get it.
In that case he should say he is committed to a second EU referendum in the UK. And he should commit Labour to fighting that referendum campaign on the basis that it wants to stay in the EU - to provide the UK with the stability that it so obviously needs - but on the basis that he will fight tooth and nail for reform of the EU, because that is what his principles demand.
That requires that Corbyn should say what he thinks is wrong with the EU, which led people in the UK to reject it. These issues are likely to include:
- Inappropriate state aid controls that prevent the creation of stable mixed-economies, full employment and anti-recessionary measures that financial crises can require;
- Inappropriate and unjustified budget controls which economic theory cannot support;
- Rules that prevent direct state funding by central banks;
- Rules that make the control of migration within the EU hard, for states suffering migratory loss and those with significant immigration, and the need to create new mechanisms to support people to stay in their places of normal residence.
Then he has to say why he wants to do this. This has to be because he wants to provide the stimulus to deliver the industrial strategy that he outlined to the Labour Party conference this autumn, and which he believes is also required across Europe, because the evidence is very strong that these policies are much more powerful when they take place in parallel.
That strategy did of course talk about some renationalisation - which pays for itself and takes rent seeking and not competition out of markets that have failed because they have become controlled by oligopolists acting against the interests of consumers - which is the exact opposite of what the EU should stand for.
But it's also about delivering a strategy for green investment that delivers jobs in every constituency through local investment in renewable energy, insulation and local alternatives to carbon-intensive transport. These are justified by the need to meet the demand to control emissions that cause climate change.
He must then say that this cannot happen without state support. The private sector has not shown the willing to deliver and the pretence that it might should be abandoned; when markets fail the state should be allowed to deliver instead. This though requires the change in budget rules; funding rules and state aid rules.
In summary, his argument should be that we face local, national, European and international crises on climate change, meeting people's needs locally and building sustainable economies. These issues can only be managed and coordinated at international level - because that is where the impact of climate on our combined futures that should be the focus of every politician's concern is bound to be. But it also requires local management of action to deliver the appropriate solutions. That then requires a fundamental change in EU thinking so that it becomes the enabler of state-supported change that markets cannot supply but which are essential for our survival and which as a result requires a change in the rules that I have noted.
And, Corbyn should add, the multiplier effect of such change is, in any case, likely to make it self-funding over time, whilst the stimulus and political momentum it would supply should create the basis for new, sustainable, employment and the development of long-term skills in communities raving for them - and in the process build the international solidarity on common objectives that the EU should supply if it is to have political relevance for all the people in all members states, and so justify its existence as an entity that can create wellbeing over, above and beyond what any state can achieve by itself.
This, I suggest is what Corbyn should say.
I can live in hope.
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:
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
Nice manifesto but he’d probably have to run it past Simon Wren Lewis and Jonathon Portes first.
That would not help
But shows you realise to what and whom he is aligned
I don’t know why you think Mr. Corbyn should direct his views on these issues to European socialists. They have been wrestling with these issues for the last 20 years and seeking to stave off considerable declines in popular support in various EU member-states, while Mr. Corbyn has been off engaging with SF/PIRA, various Palestinian factions and existing and budding Latin American Marxist autocrats (and other autocrats).
He should be doing what Leo Amery demanded of Arthur Greenwood in 1940 (Attlee was indisposed): “Speak for England, Arthur”. But, sadly, he appears incapable of doing so.
Have you noticed my focus was climate change?
Atlee dis not have to think about it
Times change
Why aren’t you?
@Paul Hunt
Where do you get this rubbish ?
Is this what it says in the Sun now that the tits are writing it instead of appearing on page three ?
Amen to that.
Absolutely spot on Richard. I entirely agree and would love to have seen Labour present these arguments consistently over the last few years (and there are those amongst us who have been pressing for such). Were we to remain in the EU I would be campaigning for just these changes.
However, the issue remains whether the EU is structurally able to allow such changes to occur — and I, and I suspect most Lexiters, would argue that it is not (whether this is by design or path-dependency is by-the-by now).
At least half the member-state governments are right-wing at the moment (probably closer to two-thirds with Macron’s choice of senior ministers placing him firmly in this camp). What remains of the left in many is a complacent (and usually beleaguered) centrist rump. If any of your list require an amendment to a Treaty (and I suspect that some do) the process will be both lengthy and almost certainly fruitless given the requirement of unanimity for such a change. A captured ECJ and the FoM of Capital will scupper others too. And that is of course, assuming that coalitions of Governments of any size could overcome the many other captured institutions — notably the Commission, ECB and ECJ.
Paradoxically, there may well be support for some or all of these policies from some of the more rightward of the (already) right in the EU, but whether a coalition with such otherwise completely unpalatable parties is possible is unlikely.
Oh, and to get anywhere at all, Corbyn (or whoever) would have to start by rebuilding a great deal of trust in the UK (or hopefully England by then) after ‘our’ catastrophic behaviour of the last few years (and the decades before that too).
Will all this in mind, on the balance of probabilities I think the chances of the change we need occurring are higher out than in.
We have to differ on the last….
Bring back Evsei Liberman.
Who?
Please expand.
I’d vote for that!
I love it when you’re sarky. Does one have to register for this pleasure? You are seriously right on what Labour should do. I’d only extend climate change to include evolutionary interference. The first springs on global warming are 19th century, but this is persnickety. May is on now and I hadn’t realised what a pathological liar she is before. I’m surprised no one has made more of the 7-page document on future relations, which is hapless. Labour should already be presenting your outline as a positive alternative. Labour should already be challenging “delivering what the people don’t want on the basis of past misinformation” – this is like Hague ordering another full frontal assault on machine guns, after the ‘first experiments’.
The realism and urgency for Green politics is clear, yet not explained in any full way in the mejar. I don’t mean at the carbon-bond photon excretion level. The danger needs explicating in coordination with what can reasonably be expected as good green lives worth living. This clearly needs international cooperation and we should stress the EU and our membership of it in these terms. That we can still have elections and expansion on the jawbs-groaf-oaf basis is dire – and we need to address this other than “tweedies driving Volvos to second homes”. I’m not saying either of us do. I have a hybrid!!
The Tories have realised May is electoral poison and I expect a regrouping on Davis. They will want to evade an informed people’s vote at all costs to plough on to no deal to cover their shorting of Britain, get rid of Scotland and get re-elected without Scottish MPs skewing England. The only rearguard is Labour. Good grief!
Well written! Excellent manifesto for change! I don’t, however, think Jeremy Corbyn has the necessary understanding, presence or moral compass to spear head it!
Yes, this is what needs to be said. This is a sound critique of the political and economic philosophy currently dominating the EU. It needs a shrewd, intelligent, analytical and articulate brain to propose these views, present this vision, and achieve its realisation. It also needs a passionate commitment. Mr Corbyn?
“his argument should be that we face local, national, European and international crises on climate change”………..and need a coherent strategy and tactics with funding both adequate in amount and in timing to implement the tactics – which in the case of the energy renovation of buildings can only be delivered at local level.
Markets do not & cannot deliver strategy or tactics – they make “stuff” and deliver services often very well (but with some significant UK exceptions). Thus the role of markets is delivering on govrnment developed strat & tactics – with gov’ ensuing the money is available – by all means possible.
On a related note: there has been an up-tick in Central bank talk about addressing climate change – sadly still stuck in the “inflation and price stability” groove – who will give the central bank gramaphone a kick?
It is not a co-incidence that the EU veered to the right back in the late 1990s at the same time as Germany and France did. If you remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s the EU was supposed to be a socialist plot to undermine UK capitalism by things like the Social Chapter, improved rights for workers, etc. As things have to be approved by the Council of Ministers and Commissioners are appointed by National Governments then clearly it will reflect the political leanings of the members. If they are neo-liberal monetarist crackpots like the CDU / CSU (especially Schaeuble the former Finance Minister) then that will feed through into Brussels. The 3% borrowing limit, ban on the ECB financing state debt, etc were all pushed through by Germany because of their rather silly paranoia about inflation. Of course, Germany was the first one to break the 3% rule, but that naturally didn’t count because it was really just to keep the rest in line. If there was a change in Germany to e.g. an SPD led government (who would spend more, increase wages, etc) then you could see a big change quite fast. Another route would be to increase the powers of the European Parliament and reduce those of the Council of Ministers. You are then, though, up against the fact that the heads of government don’t want to give up their control to the parliament.
Certainly Richard is right that we should be staying in the EU and trying to change it. I think even the Germans are finding it hard to argue that printing a trillion Euro at the ECB has been an inflationary disaster.
Thatcherism certainly shook things up in Europe as well as in the UK Tim.
But what we know now is that the deregulated UK under Thatcher was also being propped up by North Sea oil revenue at the time – not gains in productivity from asset stripping like privatisation and de-industrialisation into a service economy.
The Thatcher era was also dominated by an expansion of debt. I’d recommend Christopher Johnson’s ‘The Economy Under Mrs Thatcher 1979-1990)’ for a clear unbiased expose of what she actually achieved (or not).
For far too long our leaders have gone moaning to the EU about small matters. Going forward we need to sort out our problems with the EU by staying in. The UK has been neo-liberal for longer than main land Europe.
We therefore have a lot to tell them about this stupid ideology.
Well said. “Thatcherism” in terms of policy starts before the Iron Lady herself though. Keith Joseph is an obvious culprit, but Labour had swallowed “hard-hat” reform too.
Yes I agree Archytas – the problems with the global economy (the effect of the price of oil in particular) seemed to be poorly understood at the time so Neo-liberalism’s ‘Road tp Serfdom’ got some traction but as you seem to acknowledge Thatcher was the poster girl for it and she did more than anyone else to get its faulty logic put to use in macro policy in the UK.
Mind you, once the riots started in Brixton and Toxteth, she soon backed down for a gentler version (she actually denied ever being a neo-liberal (she had that wonderful Conservative capacity for lying). Then came Michael Heseltine and one regeneration scheme after another began to flow.
Sorry to come back but having read your blog Richard and having listened to people like McDonnel and Lammy today, I’ve got to say that I just do not understand what the Labour position is even now.
I’m clueless to be honest.
Given that the 1922 Committee is being mobilised which might lead to a hard BREXIT Prime Minister who will not make decisions on behalf of all, I think that this is very worrying.
Event horizon indeed. If we have ever wondered what it is like to go through a black hole, it looks as though we are about to find out.
According to John McDonnell ‘everything is on the table’
Including ketchup, brown sauce and mayo as far as I can see. Add salt, pepper and a drop of vinegar too if you like
Just don’t make a decision
On reforms needed, how about?
1. Elimination of tax haven practices by some countries.
2. Addressing regional inequality, in particular, measures to prevent the periphery becoming sacrifice zones for a booming core (and tax haven countries).
Good ones
Of course, we’d need to start at home…..
The Empress paraded yet again in clothes of finest invisible thread. Her ministers resigned in time to place their bets against the pound to be paid in invisible lands. The invisible opposition flashed invisible policy and Princess Kunesberg flashed invisible commentary from a taxi. Background music played by Vote Again. Everything not soldered down melts to air. Invisible Thursday. Invisible Labour threadbare. Will we see the visible Tory scheming tomorrow?
In answer to Jake (above):
Last night on Channel 4 News Fraser Nelson of all people (look him up Jake) commented about Corbyn’s silence or shall we say ‘non-committal’ by saying (I paraphrase) ‘Why do anything when your opponent is making all the mistakes?’.
I think that statement is worthy of consideration. As we seem to be realising, we have never been here before – the terrain is very unfamiliar.
Yet we still seem to want our politicians to behave the same or expect the same. This shows that many of us still have faith in ‘the system’. We still cling to rationality when in fact it may not be a valid approach in these circumstances. It might be a good time to become very open minded – frustrating as it is.
Leadership at this time maybe defined by what one does not do, rather than what one does.
‘The one who attacks first is the most vulnerable’ an old Chinese saying goes. And it is true when you think about it. As one throws a punch, you open up your side to a hit.
As for me, I have no faith in the system given that it has got us to this point. The political system has to be changed. Never mind our relationship with Europe. Our democracy is totally FUBAR.
I read Simon Jenkins this morning about May being ‘dogged and brave’. Pardon? What planet is he on? May is showing the obdurate sort of ignorance that gave us the Windrush debacle and BREXIT in equal measure. She took risks and it has not paid off.
Or another way of looking at it is that she maybe staying to ward off a pro- hard BREXIT Prime Minister and to be honest I feel that she is obliged to do so as a Remainer. And that has nothing to do with being brave. That is her duty and be under no illusion that SHE has placed herself in that position at the last election – no one else has. At least she is not just going to walk away like Dave did (perhaps?). Although she maybe forced to. But it is hard to feel sorry for her. Her bets have not paid off.
I am convinced that if Labour does act it will require exact timing because that is what this is all about at the moment (to me anyway). My main worry about Labour is that even if they do the next thing right, their Corbyn refuseniks will undermine the leader anyway. Any reasonable person cannot ignore that pressure when looking at Labour at the moment and that is a problem of the Labour party as a whole – not just Corbyn.
My guess at the moment is that Labour may react if their is a change in Leadership in the Tory party (a hard line BREXITER becomes leader ) and only then. I say this because the differences between the two parties will be more polarised at that time and easier to get across.
But until then (or not) I will take it as it comes. Remember – we have not been here before for a very long time.
Sorry to have to say you don’t seem to understand what Corbyn’s policy is on Brexit either except it’s some kind of insightful Machiavellianism that will miraculously turn out to be alright on the day!
Schofield
Unusually dismissive by you not withstanding the apology. No doubt you are frustrated but don’t take it out on me.
I know enough about Corbyn’s EU stance thanks and it does not necessarily dictate what the rest of his party think or does. Corbyn needs every friend he can get his hands on in his party. Even McDonnell knows that any break with the EU is going to impact on the poorest first and foremost. And any party in power during a post-BREXIT upheaval will face an angry electorate who tend to blame anyone but themselves for who gets into power and what they do.
Remember – we are entering the ‘event horizon’. No one knows if one can travel through a black hole and come out of the other side – or even if there is something on the other side to go into.
At times like this you have to have faith and you maintain that faith until it is either proven or unproven by what happens. What happens is called ‘facts’. Are you familiar with those?
If you are going to call it now, then you’re no better than any of the BREXIT mob in my view. Hang in there is all I can advise. We may be pleasantly surprised. Or not. That is where we are. Deal with it.
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
“Corbyn needs every friend he can get his hands on in his party.”
Very true so why is he such an idiot to publicly announce he doesn’t support party policy in regard to pushing for a Second Referendum if a general election isn’t possible? Especially so when it’s well known he whipped his MP’s to vote for Article 50. These are mis-steps as the Americans would say that make him look like part of the problem, at the opposite end of the spectrum to the ERG and UKIP head-bangers!
Its been a long time since i visited these shores.
I have to say i said ‘hallelujah’ when i read the following from your post:
“Inappropriate state aid controls that prevent the creation of stable mixed-economies, full employment and anti-recessionary measures that financial crises can require”
I have read the state aid sections of the draft agreement andni have been astonished by what i found we had sgreed to. I also found it astonishing that no other commentater has even mentioned this. I don’t suppose any labourites have spotted the kiss of death this stuff represents.
There seems to be remarkably little discussion of it
And then I get accused of being a Blairite