Summary
I worry about Keir Starmer's refusal to support the EU's proposal for free movement for people under 30 between the UK and Europe. Might he oppose this without valid reasons, akin to an authoritarian parent? I think that these travel opportunities are vital for young people to gain experiences abroad. By refusing to accept this is Starmer hinting at some deeper flaw in his character?
In this morning's video I note that the EU has offered the UK the chance of free movement for people under the age of 30, but Keir Starmer is adamant that this must not happen. He has offered no good reason, just like the parent who says no to a child without offering explanation as to why. Could it be that having the chance to say no without good reason is why he sought power?
The audit version is available here:
The transcript is:
Why is Keir Starmer so obsessed with the free movement of people?
I don't know the answer to this question. That's why I'm asking it because I am genuinely confused by his attitude towards this issue.
As we know free movement of people from the UK to the European Union ended with Brexit and that's something that isn't going to change for the time being because even those who want to go back into the European Union recognise that that event will happen at some far distant point of time, if ever at all.
So, what we are talking about instead is the fact that right now, Keir Starmer is trying to chummy up with Europe a bit more, and we are hearing from the European Union that what they want as a condition of that is that people under the age of 30, from the UK and from Europe, should have free movement into and out of the UK and into and out of Europe. So, young people will have a right that the rest of us won't, but they believe that this is important.
Why do they believe it's important?
Why do I believe that it's important? Because I definitely do.
And I am really bemused by the fact that Starmer doesn't.
I believe it's important because young people need to have the opportunity to travel. In this world, we do now have the chance to leave a country quite affordably. You can get out of the UK and into Europe on a train, on a boat, on a flight all, of which will not cost you a great deal of money.
As importantly, I want people to have the chance to not just leave to go on holiday, but to go and actually work or study somewhere else in Europe. Because that opportunity of seeing another culture is, as far as I'm concerned, really important. I did work elsewhere in Europe in my twenties. Only briefly, but for long enough to really understand another place, I think. And that broadened my imagination. It made me realise that there was more than one way of doing things.
And that's precisely the benefit of giving young people the chance to go and work abroad and also for young people from Europe to come and work here so that they can see we have something to contribute in turn. Building this depth of understanding across borders is how good relations are built internationally.
Now, you would think that Keir Starmer would want to do that. You would think he would want young people to have that chance. You would even think he wanted to be very open minded on this when it comes to the free movement of students. And yet, he isn't. He doesn't want to do this. He's made it very clear to the Germans, who have put this idea to him quite strongly, that this is not on the agenda as far as the UK is concerned.
And I don't understand why. I know I've said that several times already, and I might again before this video is out because it is so perplexing unless we consider a rather unsavoury possibility. And that possibility is that Starmer is saying no to this suggestion for a wholly irrational reason. He's saying no, simply because he can, rather like the parent who says to their child who asks to do something, “No, you can't”. The child then says, “Why can't I?”, and the parent says, “Because I told you, you cannot”, without offering any further explanation. Starmer seems to be saying just that about free movement. He's denying that right to young people because he says so.
In the process, he seems to be revealing a rather unsavoury side to his character, which I would call authoritarian. “I'm in charge, you will do what I say”, seems to be the message that is coming out of this, just as the parent says that to their child for that reason. But it doesn't build a good relationship between the parent and the child, as any parent will know because stress will almost invariably follow. And this most certainly will not build good relationships between the Labour government and young people who want the chance to go to both travel and live and work for periods in Europe during the course of the period before they're 30.
After 30 it tends to be less worrisome. People tend to come home. He should know that. Why do they come home? Because they want to be near family when they, in turn, start to have families. That is a trend that we recognize. But he's not doing it.
And if he's doing this, because this is some form of authoritarian ideal that he's putting forward, of maintaining Brexit purity because he says that we should and we can, and he won't be open-minded to anything else, I'm really worried, because if we see that now with regard to such a relatively minor issue, what other freedoms is he going to constrain that we would want to enjoy during the time that he's in office?
Is Starmer really broad-minded enough to be Prime Minister? It's a fair question to ask, and I don't know the answer.
There you go, I said it again.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
It is possible that Starmer is unable to articulate an alternative – against the busted-flush, cracked-record that is the Tory I party and what it would say if, for example he had said yes to the Germans. Doubtless the media-trash that masquerades as news would have stirred up a fuss.
We have seen similar in other areas, such as gov finance, captured by vested interests & with no desire or indeed capability on the part of LINO to articulate alternatives. Adding, Starmer is also unimaginative – but that tends to go with authoritarianism, linear thinking, TINA stuff etc. So far, so very tory, as predicted in July.
My point exactly Mike. Both unable and unwilling to reverse Brexit, the ludicrous NI cuts, water privatisation and so much else. A weak, cowardly government that is so scared of the opposition it can’t even undertake policies that would obviously help it in its stated aim of achieving growth, Luke rejoining the CU and SM.
Although I do not feel that being able to travel and work abroad is for everyone and that its importance can be over-stated, I was surprised that Keir Starmer said he was against it. It would seem to be a sensible move so I cannot see why it would be rejected.
I don’t think it’s authoritarianism Richard, it’s just another instance of this government’s political cowardice. They are terrified of the political right even though that same right has ballsed things up so much that even many of their long time voters refused to vote for them and as a result the Tories suffered of their worst ever defeats.
But labour won’t do anything other than minor gestures to get us closer to the EU because they are terrified of the inevitable and ludicrous hysterical reaction from the Brexit press. In fact, labour have just done exactly what the die hard Brexiters always wanted which is to join the Trans Pacific trade pact which rules out ever rejoining the EU. And in doing so they used the same idiotic ‘global Britain ‘ argument used by their supposed opponents on the right. In defiance of all the facts that rejoining the SM and CU would contribute far more to the growth Starmer and co are so obsessed with than what they are actually doing.
You see this cowardice everywhere with labour. Refusal to implement Leveson ll because they are terrified of Murdoch. Refusal to lift the ban on the 2 child benefit cap because they are terrified of being accused of being ‘profligate’ and they know, cynically, that a lot of the public approve of this cap anyway.
And most obviously, a total inability or desire to escape from the ‘tax and spend’ narrative peddled by the right. So as you’ve noted they are simply unable to do what should be done in so many areas e g. renationalise the water industry.
I don’t view labour as being as vile as the Tories. Instead they are weak, next to useless cowards.
“Refusal to lift the ban on the 2 child benefit cap because they are terrified of being accused of being ‘profligate’ and they know, cynically, that a lot of the public approve of this cap anyway.”
Yesterday some LINO mouthpiece was reported by R4 as saying that the Scottish Govt should stop doing financially incompetent things like child payments, free prescriptions, free education etc.
Do you think it’s possible some of them actually believe the rubbish they’re spouting?
It is hard for me to pinpoint the source of this intransigence.
I wonder if it comes from his political advisors or handlers?
He’s probably under the impression that under 30’s need to stay in Blighty and be press-ganged into work for Rachel’s beloved GDP.
Considering Colonel Smither’s observation about how truly awful some of these folk are, you could imagine them looking down on us and consider the ability to go abroad as some sort of ‘jolly’ that us ‘little people’ do not deserve.
Authoritarian? I don’t think Starmer is anything but a blank page upon which his masters write how they think the country should be ruled. The real authoritarians are in our executive homes, stately homes and corporate board rooms.
He’s been bought outright I think.
Thank you, PSR, for the shout out.
Please have a look at a longer comment when / if it comes out of moderation.
Or maybe, aware that Rachel Reeves is doing her best to alienate the pro-social element in this country, Starmer thinks he needs to reach out to xenophobes and racists.
The obvious weakness’s that free movement had in the UK in my opinion were
1. Exploitive and unregulated labour and housing markets and
2. No national ID card system or population register, and
3. As a result we could not and did not enforce the controls on free movement that we were allowed to do.
I suggest that were we to address these issues which would be worth doing for their own sakes then we could make Freedom of Movement work, however that means taking action against landlords eand employers and there is no way that will happen.
I think you overstate the issue.
As far as free movement with the EU goes, Labour (together with the most of UK politics) still lives in 2005. A short period when wages in the countries which at that point became new EU members were low, exchange rate GBP-EUR (and other EU currencies) was completely different to today’s – to the GBP’s advantage – which made UK wages high when compared to other EU countries in Western Europe, social services were not that bad and most importantly, other EU countries in Western Europe (bar Sweden and Ireland) used the possibility of 3-year grace periods.
But – that was then and now is now – 20 years later. Wages in UK are low for Western European standards, new EU countries have caught up with UK wages, exchange rate is not 1.6:1 but 1.1:1, social services in UK are horrendous and if anyone wants to move from a poorer EU country to somewhere where they can make far more money, they’ll chose the likes of Switzerland, Norway, Denmark or Ireland and most definitely not UK. There’s also the question of demography. There’s also shortage of labour absolutely everywhere in Europe (unlike 20 years ago). So – the two periods are absolutely incomparable, but UK politics still pretends that UK is an attractive place for EU workers (surprise – it isn’t).
Starmer refusing this initiative is completely incomprehensible as it is what his base wants (and so far he’s given practically nothing to his base).
Labour should at this point start asking questions what has gone wrong. Fewer than 100 days after the GE and polls are already showing Labour and Tories neck-to-neck (with Tories being leaderless and some rather looney characters their main leader contenders) and Starmer well on the way towards joining Truss, Sunak and post-party Johnson as the one of the (perceived by the public) worst PMs. And this during the phase which should be their honeymoon period. Rejecting this initiative is one of the answers what has gone wrong (a minor one, but still).
I think the main reason Starmer is repeatedly saying no, and saying no very loudly, is that he is scared of the right wing press, and keeping an eye on not having a monstering by them.
It is futile, as the right wing press will always monster a Labour government – which is why press reform and Leveson 2 is needed so badly (another thing he won’t do).
It is becoming clear that without the Starmer government agreeing to the youth mobility scheme, an SPS deal which is Starmer’s biggest ‘want’ from the EU (which is the agreement linking the UK back into EU agricultural standards) won’t happen.
The SPS deal that the EU will agree to is one of ‘dynamic alignment’ with ECJ jurisdiction, as the EU have already rejected the NZ model of equivelance (part of the EU NZ trade deal) that Britain was prepared to accept (Britain and the EU are trading next to each other, unlike NZ). Thus the ‘offer on the table’ from the EU is EU dynamic alignment with the ECJ as arbiter in any disputes – something that Johnson and the Tories had as the thickest of red lines.
This is the offer on the table, and there will be almost nothing to ‘reset’ if Starmer keeps refusing.
Erasmus was a great programme and I loved teaching those EU students, some went on to Masters and PhDs. Why on Earth doesn’t Labour reinstate it. These are our future innovators, doctors, nurses, engineers and wealth creators.
And British students placed in Europe are exposed to the reality that foreigners speak other languages and have different cultures – ideal training to conduct successful business in their futures.
The Tories Turing scheme was a pale alternative.
Starmer may well be an authoritarian by nature, but the gutting of Labour internally is originally David Evans’ blueprint from the tail end of the Blair era, where dissent was beginning to be stifled and Conference further marginalised. Externally, it’s really Blair and his network pulling the strings, with an added dose of corporate pocket stuffing. The Eagleton book on Starmer is worth a read, as it is now proving 90% predictive IMO of Starmer’s personality and actions.
I think I read somewhere that for study if it was reciprocal EU students wouldn’t have to pay fees. ?? possibly a reason .
Starmer is and always has been an authoritarian in my view. Look at how he has treated Labour Party members that do not comply with his zionist view of the world.
And note this: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/09/the-end-of-western-pluralist-democracy/
AliB:
And as far as I can see, the sinister, Lobby-orchestrated police intimidation of pro–Palestine journalists that Murray reports has been unreported by mainstream media.
Starmer a “human rights lawyer”? What a black joke.
Starmer didn’t believe in Brexit, and knows perfectly well that it is an irrecoverable economic catastrophe, but he has tied himself to the Brexit ship’s mast. He is, if you will a Presbyterian who has accepted a Bishop’s hat. There is no way back, just airy prevarication and vague utterances.
Thank you to Richard and other commentators, including PSR, for the shout out.
There’s something more malign about Starmer.
As DPP, Starmer spent an odd amount of time in the US*, not just related to his persecution of Julian Assange, and became friendly with the neocons and neoliberals.
The Atlanticist neo-cons here and in the US were among the people manoeuvering Starmer into position to undermine and succeed Corbyn. They have no interest in the EU** and don’t want young Britons to get ideas. They did the same to Theresa May and even parachuted an employee as Johnson’s chief of staff.
Corbyn’s discussions with the EU were going in the right direction. A Norway Plus deal was on the cards as late as the Monday before the Thursday election in 2019. This was when Corbyn met Barnier in Brussels. Starmer undermined all that by going off piste.
*I will leave Starmer’s expenses at and pension from the CPS for another occasion.
**This rejection of the EU includes admission to the Pacific trade partnership***, a declining USA’s attempt to stop China. British policymakers should pay attention to what former PM Paul Keating, former foreign minister Gareth Evans and former official Hugh White have to say about Australia allying with the US and UK.
***Estimated by the UK Treasury as adding the grand total of 0.4%, sic, to UK GDP.
Starmer can’t rock that boat even if he wants to.
Adding to Col Smithers:
LINO leaders seem to make a habit of going to the US, it is a matter of record that Brown in the 1980s/1990s spent summer hols (mostly east coast) there (learning finance the US way). I note that May quashed the deportation of some poor devil to the USA (he exposed the poor I.T. security of the US coastguard) – Starmer went bonkers (most satisfying) & went out of his way to apologise to the USA.
One has the impression of a UK that resembles Puerto Rico – but without the right to live in the USA – doubltess this suits the USA – keeping the Greeks – oops I meant the Brits (mind wandered to Rome – Greece) in their place.
I read David Marquand’s ‘The Unprincipled Society’ (1988) a while back and it still resonates with me.
I think the problem lies in those who were born and bred to rule as well as politicians from a wide range of backgrounds who show how willing they too can be be to ‘forget’ things – something that Groucho Marx described as (paraphrased roughly).
‘I have principles……..and if you don’t like them, I have others you might approve of!!’.
This infers flexibility, but also a lack of adherence to principle. I would call it ‘neo-capriciousness’ – an easily changed mind on a whim – usually involving personal profit or gain or marketing.
That to me sums up Stymied’s Labour and Blair as well. We have become a very capricious people – particularly our politicians.
Thank you and well said, Mike.
Under LINO, US academics and regulators flocked to the UK. Other than some academics, no regulators went to the US.
Do readers remember Brown, wearing a summer jacket and trousers, walking with his family on the beach in New England one August? He was obsessed with the US and alienated EU counterparts with his constant exhortations that their countries must emulate the US, especially after a the summer breaks and Bretton Woods institution meetings.
Further to recent comments about Andrew Bailey, his wife is American. They have a lodge in the Rockies. Another one obsessed with the US and the current neoliberal outlook.
Freedom of movement should be a human right. If it wasnt for migration into the UK Britain would not have become a ‘great’ country in the past. Starmer is taking this anti-freedom policy as he is still scared and in thrall to the gutter right-wing press who want to paint him as pro-EU and anti-brexit.
Starmer is following the same approach as the Brexiteers, the EU will benefit from anything that the exceptional UK puts forward and bend to the UK’s demands.
The EU reality is the UK is a third country and if you want to negotiate with us this is what you have to do.
The result nothing will happen due to UK exceptionalism.
Labtory have said we intend to get trade deals with other countries. Meaning more deals like the Pacific one with its exciting projected .04% increase in GDP.
As for the Aukus Pact, the US is trying to get Australia to commit to supporting any US action in the Pacific. The UK is likely to tag along.
Do not expect the UK to produce the required submarines on time and in budget.
Thank you, John.
With regard to Aukus, France, perhaps in pique, pointed this out, but the likes of Keating have, too. There’s resistance in Australia and NZ to this US alliance. The personal benefits that the US aligned hawks have gathered has not helped.
In what I see as related news, Raynor is refusing to agree that Labour won’t be doing away with the single person’s council tax reduction. This is leading folk to suggest that’s exactly what Labour have in mind. What do Labour have against single people? some are asking. Simples; single people aren’t rearing new workers, and the parasitic so-called elites who Labour seem to work for will be well aware they won’t be able to maintain their current life-styles without an up and coming generation available to exploit.
Similarly they don’t want young folk getting to see the far superior quality of life waiting for them in the EU, neatly explaining Starmer’s blunt refusal to allow them to travel.
It’s getting near crunch time. It’ll soon be getting more and more apparent that as far as the rich are concerned we exist to serve or we don’t exist at all.
I should have added that only ZDF covered Starmer’s visit. There was no mention in the French MSM that I tend to follow.
I have heard from the EU grapevine that they are unimpressed and unlikely to waste time on Starmer / the UK.
Authoritariansim usually goes hand in hand with the police being allowed to do anything they want.
This is a rather sobering account of the plods doing exactly that – under Starmer, last week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjwycG_9Ujo
The conclusion is that they would seem that they have been given carte blanche by … the LINO drone running the home office.
And all the overtime and police effort is paid for by… UK citizens. Does what happened seem proportional?
When will criticism of the govs’ record on the economy be classed as “terrorism”.
I hope this goes to crown court – & that the jury realises that this could happen to any of them, at any time. The police are completely out of control.
I too am confused and bemused by Starmer’s response and rejection of the EU’s proposal. It defies logic and seems petty and, as you say, smacks of parental authoritarianism. My concern moreover is that he is able to do this without explanation and, even more worryingly, not being taken to task about it. This leaves us in a position where we can only theorise and guess at his motives. My theory: I live in Germany and many of my German friends holiday in the UK (they love Scotland) and all bar non return and comment that the sheer ‘in your face’ evidence of inequality was a shock. Under 30’s returning from northern EU countries that have far less inequality and a demonstrable higher standard of living can only result in those returning and telling their peers that there’s a better world out there and things can be done differently.
Why do you think the UK returning will be a distant event?
All that’s needed is a Labour government, not this current Tory-lite shambles.
Thank you, John.
I work for an EU firm in the City and have been involved with such matters since 2007.
That may help, but the EU has moved on. It detects no enthusiasm or consensus for a rapprochement in the UK, but hears mixed messages and has little faith in Starmer.
Discussions are likely to be kept technical, not political. Starmer trying to influence Germany is unlikely to win friends in other capitals and Brussels.
Even if there is a rapprochement, to whatever degree, the jobs that have gone to the EU or not come to the UK are unlikely to return or come. Investors aren’t taking that political risk and all the complications that go with such investments.
It’ll be a distant event because it will be difficult to get other EU countries convinced to let us back in. There is a queue, as Scotland was told in the lead up to a referendum. If Scotland becomes independent and an EU member before the ex-UK (England) applies again, I’d be keen for our Holyrood government to consider invoking our veto!
The official history of the European Commission to 1972 (note the word “official”) , has an end note, to wit: – that allowing the UK to join the then EC was a mistake. It won’t be repeated. The Brits have made their bed, they need to get used to it. That said, the EU would probably be happy with Scotland joining (all that energy you see) but the English? never. The trajectory for the English is medium/long term decline – & there is little that can arrest that since the institutions of state are designed to foster that decline and pauperise English serfs.
I believe Starmer struggles to make any decision,this we saw during the covid pandemic when he preferred the unscientific views of the media than those scientists and doctors who were actually working in the field. Anyway the first hint of how authoritarian Starmer is came when he basically sacked the recently elected MPs who voted to scrap the cap of two child benefit. In his campaign to become leader Starmer promised to scrap this cap if elected so what happened? I am sure Starmer will say he rejected this proposal because the EU wanted concessions which he wasn’t prepared to give. But if Starmer really wants warmer relationships with the EU he must learn all bargains require give and take otherwise you end up with no change which helps nobody.
I was put in mind of what I learned in post-Hoxha Albania. People could be imprisoned or tortured for listening to an Italian radio station, reading certain books or publications. Anything an everything that might let them know that the world outside was different and the official line that Albania was great wasn’t true. The exceptionalism has been in place for a long time, now they’ve only got to consolidate the start they’ve made on the rest.
As for something which seems laughably trivial – maybe it’s the boiled frog thing. Let’s hope it never gets to stage where there’s an English version of Niemoller’s poem.
First they came for 3+ child households
And I said nothing, because I don’t believe in large families
Then they came for the Winter Fuel Allowance
And I said nothing, because I’d been sensible and got a highly paid job with a good pension
Then they came for the NHS
And I said nothing, because I’d got really great private health insurance
And so on
Or maybe he doesn’t have any other argument to offer besides “because I say so”. Which, as the good Prof points out, isn’t likely to end well…
Good Prof?
Too much deference and implied status for my comfort…..