thoughts – davelevy.info

What’s happening to Labour with respect to the EU?

What happened at Labour Party conference and what will happen next on the subject of relations with the European Union?

Burnham’s speech to Labour Conference has changed the debate in the country and the Party.

At the UN GA , via flickr No10, CC 2026 BY-NC-ND

The quote on the topic of the EU, is,

We will not give Britain the clear path we need into the rest of the century until we decide on a long-term relationship with what is still our largest market. I cannot say to you truthfully that where we are is good enough.

Brexit has done more harm than good.

We need to restore a higher level of growth and prosperity for Britain.

So, I will take the opportunity around the summit to lay out to you, to lay out to the country, what I believe the different options are for Britain’s long-term relationship with our European partners.

He goes on to specify the options as the status quo, customs union, single market and full membership.

We will need to wait and see exactly what he says at the next EU-UK summit, although he seems to be asking for opinions from think tanks, but not it seems Labour Party conference.

Clarifying the choices and showing an inclination is positive.

Only one option, that of full membership makes sense; the single market is indivisible and being a rule taker is inappropriate for an economy and population of the size of the UK. While negotiations may occur, the opt-outs have gone and we’ll need to show good faith in the negotiations and the more difficult we are, the more difficult the EU and the member states will be. It still needs a unanimous vote of member states. Full membership would also allow he UK to join the EU’s Cohesion programme and the European Green Deal programme both allowing the pursuit of Burnham’s “good growth in every postcode” promise.

I am of the view that his timetable is to give him time to persuade elements of the PLP that this needs to be done. We can see various commentators raising a shopping list of demands on the EU, on financial services regulation, the Euro, Schengen and some even suggesting we need to be outside the EU’s digital market rules. These are designed to slow or disrupt any progress and must be opposed.

The reaction of some of think tanks has been positive with Best for Britain finally calling to rejoin, Galsworthy of the EM correctly sees it as dropping Starmer’s red lines, and even the UKCIE and Anan Menon supporting the move.

Bu underlining all this, is he disparity of size between the UK and the EU, Finland took two years to enter the EU, others have been failing for over a decade. The UK needs to show that we’ have learnt; the EU is a union of people, not just a trade club. …

On reference backs at Labour Conference

Last year at #Lab25, the reference backs submitted were not put to Conference. Here are the rules and procedural guidance that says they should. It would seem that the CAC seeks to avoid votes and moving speeches.

The Delegates Briefing promises that the CAC will publish the relevant reference backs in the daily report. CAC2 does not contain these references and I understand that no reference backs were called this a.m.

If someone wants to make a point of order, then these rules below or overleaf apply, …

Labour Party: Rule 2.2.8 dignity and respect

I am just writing something for CLPD’s yellow pages, and need to reference Labour’s rules on membership rights.

There follows an extract of rule C2.2.8.

Members have the right to dignity and respect, and to be treated fairly by the Labour Party. Party officers at every level shall exercise their powers in good faith and use their best endeavours to ensure procedural fairness for members.

I’d suggest that this is not a rule well observed. …

Backwardness of Glamour

State Opening of Parliament – FCO – OGL1.0 2015

Sometimes one’s feeds actually throw up some golden nuggets. I came across this facebook video reel from Andi Shehu. It’s not very long, but packs a lot in. He argues that much of the support for the Brexit vote was based upon nostalgia for an empire that had already been dismantled and one that today’s voters cannot possibly remember and that that this political nostalgia is fuelled by outdated Victorian traditions at the core of British government, maybe even from pre-Victorian times and that true improvement requires democratic reform. The reel led me to look at some earlier theorists who first articulated these ideas and suggesting that the British state never adopted democracy and remained the instrument of old wealth based on land.

In many ways what came after 1945 was much better and much more democratic and served the mass of the population better than its predecessor. The UK built houses, formed the NHS and developed its manufacturing capability to provide jobs wealth and income to the bulk of the population. People’s memory of the poverty of the Great Depression led them to build a comprehensive welfare state guaranteeing social security and a limited freedom from poverty. This was dismantled by reactionary conservative movements, and the engine of the economy moved back towards finance and the City of London, institutions that have no patriotism and yield no investment in the wellbeing of the British people. These changes were not the fault of Brussels, but the project designers needed a scapegoat as the factories, steel works & mines were closed, and relative poverty, ably illustrated by the work of P. Danny Dorling, ensued.

Shehu then argues that much of the nostalgia is focused on the pomp and ideology of the British State. He quotes Tom Nairn’s ideas about the “glamour of backwardness” where the “mother of parliaments” & the pomp of the monarchy become to be seen as desirable and sources of pride. There are many recent examples of this constitutional exceptionalism, but one egregious example was Andrea Leadsom’s criticism of the European Union as having five presidents that no one could name; at least they’re not hereditary monarchs and the European Parliament is wholly elected by proportional representation. The conclusion is that the British state is no longer fit to run a 21st century society and that it remains a tool of control of the economy and its people in the interests of an economic elite, which in the UK . looks very much like the old, 18^th century one.

I recommend you look at the Facebook reel as he is much more economic in words than I am.

However, watching the video reminded me of the conclusions, or maybe the premise of “Capitalism divided?” by Stuart Ingram who sought to examine why the British state did not act as “the executive committee of the bourgeoisie”; I found the book fascinating, and I’ve promised myself to review it on this blog.

At the centre of his argument, is the proposition that the funding of the original industrial revolution was based upon the wealth of the landed aristocracy. The British economy became a commercial economy and the centre of world trade finance; the British state was optimised to defend the power of landed wealth and gave birth to the development of a mercantile economy not a manufacturing one and so it never served the capitalist class. It’s for these reasons that the post 45 reforms were required and the victory of the People’s War gave the working class the confidence to build a “land fit for heroes”.

My two takeaways from the video and my brief limited reading since then, is that democratic reform is a critical part or attempting to build a society free of poverty where people can fulfil themselves in the world of work and avoid alienation and appropriation. Proportional representation, devolution and subsidiarity and the abolition of the monarchy are not side issues to economic fairness. The second takeaway reinforces the idea that the British economy’s continued reliance on global finance is a weakness in delivering for the mass of people in the UK.

Simplicity is power

a robot giving off sparks, in bue tones (AI)

The events that made me write Rejoin the need for speed reminded me of Robocop II, where Robocop’s three directives were augmented to over 300. In that case, they were deliberately designed to reduce Robocop’s effectiveness.

In the world of resolutionary politics, too often, the special interest demands of part of a majority voting bloc are accepted weakening the powerful simplicity of the motion’s original design.

Work out what you want and keep it simple. (It also makes it harder for opponents to nit pick). …

A new 5 point plan on Europe

The European Movement write to Andy Burnham on his arrival at Downing St.. They call for the Government and Labour Party to,

Drop the red lines on Europe,
By the end of 2026, publish a strategy for cementing the UK’s place in Europe
Make the UK Europe’s closest security partner
Launch a national conversation on the UK’s European future
Put a route to EU membership in Labour’s next manifesto

They now have a petition to support their demands, I have signed it, it would be great if you did too.

Image Credit: By me! CC 2022 BY-SA 2.0 or via flickr. …

The Cruel Sea

I went to watch the cruel sea on HMS Belfast on 13th June; the show consisted of the film followed by two selections from the Imperial War museums film archive. There was a question and answer session, chaired by James Taylor and Charlotte Ross of the IWM. During the Q&A, I made a contribution, and have transcribed my notes as a comment on the original article. …

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. …

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. …

Climate Change

I feel it’s important to report on the GMB’s debate on climate change due to its image as an opponent of net-zero and clean energy.

four huge smoking chimneys on the horizon with a sepia wash

Current Congress policy is recorded in the GMB’s policy book and the key differences between GMB policy and the more radical campaigners is that it wants to see the new jobs before the old systems are turned off, their goal is 2050, they support nuclear power and retaining gas as a source of consumer energy. Importantly the GMB wants to see the energy companies renationalised. The union still has policy supporting fracking and to issue more drilling licences in the North Sea.

The motions debated were M293 and 294 available in the final agenda document, also here, and the debate is recorded on the video stream. I congratulate Val Brooks moving M295 for her speech. Both motions call for the development of campaigning coalitions and for member education. They are both steps away from the hard luddism of some elements of the GMB. There may be room for hope because the big problem with the GMB policy is that given a choice between jobs & members and net-zero, GMB’s leaders choose jobs. They show little understanding that “Just Transition” is two words.

For procedural reasons, I only have the CEC comment/qualification on M294, they say,

The CEC is seeking to refer this motion to explore further working with our worker-led Workers Power the Future campaign and Climate Jobs UK, which is a coalition of trade unions representing tens of thousands of energy workers, campaigning for a jobs-first clean energy transition that delivers high-paid, high-skilled work here in the UK.

The CEC does not agree with the motion’s assertion that GMB has “failed to identify and articulate broader long-term interests of workers and how jobs can be sustainable” given our longstanding work with the above two initiatives which has been precisely to empower our members to have their say over the nature and type of work that they do and play a role in determining the future of their industry.

It remains GMB’s belief that our belief that there are paths for all the GMB-organised industries to play their part in meeting the net-zero emissions target. It must be recognised however that some industries will always be difficult to decarbonise, and while every effort should be made to achieve carbon reductions within individual industries, it is the overall balance across the UK that counts. Any decarbonisation plans should also be subject to full and genuine consultation with the workers who are most affected by industrial change.

I have never heard of the two campaigns and agree with the motion that the GMB has failed to identify and articulate broader long-term interests of workers and how jobs can be sustainable. Given the choice between renewables and legacy energy systems, GMB chooses the latter, the phrase, “it is the overall balance across the UK that counts”, is basically code for agreeing to keep dirty energy systems running. The good news is that this is being questioned by members and delegates

It’s a difficult problem for the GMB, I hope it finds a way to do the right thing by the rest of the country. …

« Previous