There’s no useful half way house

Earlier this month, Michel Barnier made a speech in which he suggested that the European Union would welcome the United Kingdom rejoining the EU even with some of the opt-outs previously negotiated. Barnier is very clear that he is only talking about Schengen and the Euro. The huge problem with the speech and the suggestion that opt-outs remain on the table is this will be interpreted by lukewarm supporters and political weathercocks as permission to haggle on the terms of re-entry.  

Michel Barnier – European Parliament cc 2019 BY

The unacceptability of UK opt-outs within the EU, specifically, staying out of Schengen and the Euro, is illustrated in a recent You Gov poll. Unfortunately, for rejoiners, the French and Germans will only accept a UK application if it includes Schengen and the Euro, while support in the UK falls if we do not rejoin on the terms we had. It would be interesting to note what people believe those terms to be, as apart from Schengen and the Euro, they include a partial opt-out from the justice pillar, together with the famous rebate.  

I am concerned that while a number of campaigners have been trying to prove their cleverness by suggesting there’s ways to rejoin without agreeing to the Copenhagen Criteria, others have been encouraged to consider EU membership as an a-la-carte process. It is not.

On the question of opt-outs, we, i.e. rejoiners need to show some leadership. Schengen comes with the right to freedom of movement. This is a popular and positive benefit of full membership of the European Union. Politicians, particularly Labour politicians should be showing some leadership.  The opt-outs are gone; there may be some technical reasons why Schengen and the Euro will take some time but being a net contributor is one reason why we’re wanted and full membership of the justice pillar gives each citizen access to the Court of Justice of the European Union acting as a backstop against the authoritarian instincts of the British State with judges appointed by the children of opponents of fascism and Stalinism. Being members of the Digital Single Market would have the benefit of defending our democracy against US Oligarchs and Putin.

I want my European citizenship back, I want to vote for MEPs and a Parliament that appoints a Commissioner and Judge, and has a seat on the European Council. And since this is a metaphor in common use, I want it in my lifetime. I also want to participate in improving the democracy of the EU to make it accountable to the views of citizens and residents.

Another reason for pace, is that the EU is about to move on in a big way. Many argue that its changed too much to rejoin anyway; it’s not yet true and just something that Brexiters say but if the industrial policy takes off, it will damage the UK’s ability to export and further damage supply chains. …

After Makerfield, what next?

Is winning in Makerfield a new dawn for Labour, or just that this time, voters chose Labour as the “Not Farage” candidate. Since they won in Runcorn & Helsby, Reform have failed in Caerphilly, Gorton and Denton, and now Makerfield, losing to Plaid Cymru, the Greens and now to Labour. It was a great victory for Burnham and Labour, but the question has to be asked together with has Labour learnt the lesson that to fight Reform, you need to fight it. (I think not!)

Source: No10@flickr 10th June 2026 CC 2026 BY-ND-NC

Having returned to the House of Commons, Burnham has forced Keir Starmer to resign and a time table for a Party leadership election has been declared.

Much has been written about why he had to go; I have been calling for it since February when the likely defeats in Scotland and Wales became obvious. On the day, Labour also lost three more London Councils.

Starmer’s resignation speech starts in the same way as his election campaign to be leader of the Labour Party, with lies. When Starmer inherited the Labour Party, it was in the strongest financial position it had been for decades and anyone who has closely read the Forde report and the EHRC report knows there is still work to do to eliminate racism from the Labour Party. The focus on macroeconomic statistics repeats the mistakes that Biden made. While I do not subscribe to the meme that “perception is reality”, perhaps it is truer in politics than in engineering. Claiming the credit for growth doesn’t work if income equality remains at the current miserable level and if the growth in the economy goes into the pockets of a few. If people don’t feel better off, then it’s pointless claiming they should. It’s also difficult to understand, how Starmer can claim credit for the abolition of the two child benefit cap when he initially suspended seven MPs for voting for that abolition.

Much has been written about Starmer’s weaknesses as a politician and Prime Minister. For a lot more words you can check out Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, who focuses on personality and the politics of Downing St., and fails to mention Gaza and the Middle East, and alternatively, Phil Burton Cartledge, who does mention them, together with the dishonesty of his mandate within the Party. Phil also repeats his accusation that Starmer and McSweeney deliberately sought to break up Corbyn’s electoral coalition.

 Although some would seek to claim he’s been good on the world stage; this does need to be contrasted with his speeches and actions on Gaza, which is one of the primary causes for Labour’s loss of political support. Labour started the general election campaign with a poll score of 44%, finished with a vote of 34% which has since  collapsed to a score in the high teens.

Source: politico.eu – British polls 24 June 2026

It is expected that Burnham will be crowned as Labour’s new leader. If so he will be beholden to the fixers and not the membership and his retreats from his beliefs in order to win Makerfield are worrying because Labour and the country need a change of direction not a change of personnel.

The new leader also needs to turn Labour’s democracy back on. It is clear from the ending of Blair’s New Labour government that this Government and Labour leadership have run out intellectual steam; the Party needs debate and new ideas to sustain its relevance and energy.  We can also see by observing the last two years of the PLP what happens when MPs fear their whip more than their members and voters.

Clive Lewis, in an article entitled, ‘After Burnham’s Win in Makerfield, the Answer Cannot be Managerial Politics with a Different Accent’, speaks for me, when he says,

“Climate breakdown, war, energy insecurity, financial shocks, technological upheaval, and democratic decay are here. They will not wait for Labour to finish its management seminar.”

 …

On “Stop killing video” games

On “Stop killing video” games

The ECI “Stop killing video games” was accepted as having reached its one million signature threshold earlier this year. The initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by their publishers. They also say, this prohibition can be met by providing means for the game to continue functioning  independent of publisher. This article looks at the Commission response, the campaign’s next steps and questions the Commission’s strategy in responding to ECIs. …

Emergency Motions

There were a large number of Emergency Motions tabled. The key rules are that it relates to an event occurring after the closing date for motions which is the end of January.

In this blog post, I identify what I consider the important emergency motions, two because they are important statements of policy and one because it managed o raise an issue nearly 50 years old. This is an important issue to me as I sought to get an Emergency Motion tabled on the basis of an event two months old and was told that it wasn’t an emergency.

EM6 dealt with the scandal of the forced adoptions for single mothers that occurred in between 1949 and the eighties. The issue had become live due to a Parliamentary Education Select Committee where the Government had raised the issue of an apology. The debate is on the feed, and I have posted the motion to this blog.

The Union debated the issue of Trans-rights in the light of the updated EHRC guidance. The text of the motion is posted on this blog, perhaps its central piece, is

The new guidance is discriminatory, unworkable and effectively excludes trans, non binary and gender diverse people from swathes of public life including working life the Lords. The law must be changed.

The motion notes that the law not only oppresses trans people but also places a duty on managers and workers that may breach their free speech rights. It also noted that the advice becomes law after a scrutiny period and called for action to oppose its passage in Parliament. The debate is on the video feed.

On the 9th June, riots broke out in Northern Ireland where the victims/targets were immigrants. Further protests occurred in Glasgow, Scotland and Southampton. At Congress, one of the delegates present made a fabulous and well received speech expressing the Union’s intolerance of racial hatred and solidarity with the communities effected. (I am looking for the video feed URL). We also debated an Emergency Motion, the text of which is on this blog. A critical quote is,

We say no to racism, we say no to violence incited by those who do not live in or care a one bit for our communities.

Due to the high number of EM’s neither the agenda document nor the time tables were amended, and there is no single document containing the emergency motions. I hope to take better notes next year if fortunate enough to be elected a delegate.  …

Imprisonment for Public Protection at GMB 26

My branch proposed M262, on IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION.

gmb 26, my real desk

The motion says,

Imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences were introduced in 2005 and abolished in 2012. The application of this law was not backdated, so thousands are still behind bars indefinitely. Those released live with the threat of a return to indefinite incarceration for misdemeanour offences or more concerning if a relapse in their mental health proves a perceived risk to the public.

Without adequate access to rehabilitation and in the latter case denial of care provision in the most appropriate place (hospital than prison), The European Court of human rights ruled in 2012 that this practice violated of human rights under Article 5. It is time this practice decried by the United Nations as “inhumane” was ended.

We call upon the Government to:

1. Prioritise the review, and re-sentencing of all prisoners currently under an IPP, noting that around 70% have served 10 years more than the sentencing tariff.

2. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that prisoners under an IPP have access to adequate support and appropriate healthcare provision to reduce their risk to the public allowing safe release.

3. Allow urgent re-sentencing and risk assessment of those for whom the continuation of the IPP sentence has been deemed by a medical professional to be a specific barrier to the delivery of effective health care provision and recovery.

X58 LONDON CENTRAL GENERAL BRANCH, LONDON REGION

My moving and the seconding speech are on the video feed. …

GMB’s finance report 2026

I have always attended the finance department fringes if attending Congress as a delegate but this article reflects on the debate on Congress floor, dealing with rep expenses, subscriptions and the annual accounts.

The GS addresses GMB Congress 26

This year the income and expenditure statement shows a small surplus, but I was pointed to the growth in net assets, in particular cash balances. I need to read the report more thoroughly.

The debate consisted of a series of motions, including two “Emergency Motions”, both of which were on rep. expenses. The ordinary motions were on access to digital tools (M43), the funding of GMB presence at the Tolpuddle festival (M44) and on legal support and roles M45. These are on pp49-50 of the Final Agenda. The motions on expenses, EM10 & EM11 were not available to me at the time of writing, despite being nearly three months after the event. They were both about increasing the rates of subsistence and pay for reps.

The debate on the financial proposals and Gary Smith’s introduction to the accounts is also on video.

On the state of the Union’s finances, the real operating surplus was £401k, which represents a slight drop in value on £74½ m turnover, itself up by £5m.

The cash held figure is up by £4.1m, with total net assets up to £133m by £17m. It is these numbers rather than the operating surplus which allow the leadership to claim such a rude health. This positive report is caused by ending the special pension fund payments of £10m p.a. They also claim that the fund is now very healthy, so I hope for a reduction in employer contributions next year. On the positive side, the Union has been earning through the resolution of legally managed equal pay disputes, but they may also need to reserve against a Unionline fraud which Is being investigated by the police.

The CEC recommend a member’s subscription freeze.

During the debate, one of the speakers called for the restoration of the branch remittance to 10%. Branch expense is up, but down from 2021 when it was £6½m. It would seem that the cut in branch remittance has not saved what they expected.

After the Congress ended, I was pointed at the Union’s AR21, which showed that the GS salary has increased, from £166k to £176k. CEC honouraria expense, excluding the President and Vice President, has fallen, 19 of 55 ordinary executive members of the GMB CEC were paid a sum total of £144k ranging from £1,000 to £16K.  I must remember to look at the AR21, if available, before Congress next year. Only the AR21 reports on the leadership costs. …

Use of Twitter/X

I seconded a motion on the use of Twitter/X, the motion criticised the seeming scofflaw approach by twitter/x and called for protection for workers who wished to avoid it and called for the GMB to further restrict its use of the platform and to also call for employers to withdraw also. The article, posts the words of the motion, my speech and links to the video. It also noted that it was opposed. For the complete article, use the "Read More" button.

John Healey at GMB26

the platform at gmb26 in the blackpool wintergardens

Congress was addressed by John Healey MP, the Secretary oi State for Defence, I looked for the text of the speech on Labour and the gov.uk site, but could not find it. It was however reported in the Morning Star and at the BBC, also Google AI perspectives says,

“John Healey MP used his speech at the GMB Union Congress in June 2026 to announce plans to unashamedly prioritize British companies and jobs in future defence spending.

This speech, like the whole conference was published on the GMB video feed. Possibly the key push within the new plans is that by prioritising British firms, they claim the money works twice, firstly by buying weapons to secure the UK, but secondly by investing in UK industries and workers. There are some who argue that defence investment is a dead investment as there is no, or little, investment multiplier effect, but they can’t argue that there is no multiplier effect from spend on labour costs. Actually the idea that defence industry investment has no civil multiplier effect seems to be extraordinarily weak.

Healey name checked the defence factories that the GMB organises and of course, defended the need for Trident, and rather strangely, declared the desire to see the Union Jack on top of every weapon. (Very Dr. Strangelove). This strange patriotism avoids talking about the UK’s dependence on US arms industry and the current unreliability of the United States as a provider; it also may make co-operation with Europe and the EU member states more difficult as the UK’s failure to join the EU SAFE programme, and the continued conversations about the EU’s industrial accelerator Act, aka the “Made in Europe” proposals shows.

What this hubris also fails to address is that developing some of these weapons is now beyond the UK alone, we need allies and that today involves a choice. 

I had written a piece on defence, and defence sovereignty earlier in the year.

Two days later, Healey and his No 2, Al Cairns resigned  from Government, I posted a video of their resignation statements in my blog, …

Employment Rights

The debate on Employment Rights, started the day, and dealt with Composite 6  and motions 104-6 pp 73-74 in the final agenda document.  The debate is published on youtube. I have clipped the whole debate so that you can see/hear the  CEC reply to all four motions.

the platform at gmb26 in the blackpool wintergardens

Composite 6 Employment rights bill is on pp163-164 of the final agenda document. It argues that the compromises necessary to secure passage of the ERA were needed and necessary reforms and that further legislation is needed.

I moved the composite, and my notes for the speech are/were,

President, Congress: Dave Levy London Region moving Composite 6 – Employment Rights and Strengthening More Rights for all Workers

In the CEC political strategy paper yesterday, much was made of the success in getting the Employment Rights Act onto the statute book, and it is a success, but it’s been a long fight and neither the GMB, nor TULO have got all that we asked for.

First, we had to get the demands into Labour’s Green Paper, the “New Deal for Workers”, then the Manifesto, and then after Rayner’s resignation to sustain the position of the Bill within Government, against both business lobbying and their acolytes in the Labour Party and Government.

In addition, we need to recognise the malign influence of the House of Lords, now packed with light weight political apparatchiks who have no respect for the convention that the House of Lords doesn’t block legislation that implements manifesto promises.

We should recognise that solving the latter problem is in the Government’s hands although they are running out of time.

There are things we still need:

Strike ballots still need 50% turnouts, and while notice has been reduced, its still there and the role of e-voting is still not what we want or need.

Not all the Tory anti-union/anti-strike laws have been repealed.

They do not have a satisfactory answer to single worker status, nor to zero hour contracts.

The Equal Pay provisions have also been delayed.

We never thought it would be easy but  I thought once it was in the manifesto, we would get it right, but there is more to do.

The CEC will suggest that we don’t need a second act, but primary legislation needs to be repealed, secondary legislation is much easier to reverse and the way things are the odds of a Labour led 2nd administration don’t look good.

We need the whole deal, together with an increased minimum wage and a better SSP policy.

We should aspire that the UK is beacon to the world for trade union rights.

Please support the composite.

Since M104 on Bullying, came from my delegation, I was expecting it. I consider this a  very important development of GMB policy. It’s a massive loophole that if you are bullied because of a protected characteristic, you can seek remedy in an industrial tribunal, but not if you are bullied by an equal opportunity bully. The motion text is on  pp73-74 of the final agenda document

This was followed by M106 on 3rd Party Removals. This occurs when an employee of a service provider is accused of some wrong doing, and denied access by the contractor. In these circumstances the accused has no right to a fair due process and their employer is often left with no choice but to remove them from the contract. While the law is that the employer must seek to find them work and role presumably on another contract, often this is not available. There were  two good speeches on this motion, Clive Murton seconding summarises the injustice, The CEC qualification was to my mind very poor on the qualification, the whole point is to create a legal minimum standard with the threat of judicial review to allow site negotiation.

I think these two motions are important developments in GMB policy and I will be checking to see if they make it into the policy book and follow up if not. …