On Monday 12th, there was a debate in the House of Commons on rejoining the European Union. This happened due to the success of a parliamentary petition. You can view the debate via its video feed, or track what was said via Hansard. This followed the Prime Minister’s statement in the Commons, [video/ or text @ gov.uk]. The video contains questions from the chamber inc. those from Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition.
In Westminster Hall, there were some good and less good speeches but one has to understand or consider or ask, just how far MPs have moved since Burnham’s conference speech. One can argue that it has given Labour’s pro-EU MPs a freedom to speak their minds but while some including Stella Creasy, are now arguing for the government to drop its red lines, a number of them still fundamentally only believe in developing the “reset”; their target, if that thought out, is a Swiss style deal.
Creasy in her speech, emphasised that rejoining will take some humility and that European politicians can read the British press and know what people are saying.
I would argue the Burnham by posing the options has in fact dropped the red lines and when examining the options of the status quo, customs union/single market and full membership, it is clear that for an economy and population of the United Kingdom only full membership makes sense. Full membership will also give access to social and financial solidarity programmes.
Bernard Jenkins and Danny Kruger, Tory & Reform MPs, made well-argued speeches stating that the UK economy had outperformed that of Europe [DL1] and certainly that of the European G7 countries, that finance had prospered and that AI was becoming the innovation centre of growth within the UK. They argue that innovation & deregulation and not trade are the key drivers for growth. They also don’t mention income distribution and affordability. They are in danger falling into Joe Biden’s trap while reading the statistics and mistaking them for people’s perceptions of what’s happening. People are feeling poor[DL2] , and blame Brexit and Tory (& Starmer’s) austerity.
I would add that the UK shouldn’t want an economy based solely on finance and AI. Together they carry a massive risk that AI is a bubble, that its productive capacity is very limited and that when the bubble bursts both banks and pension funds will be in jeopardy. The lack of productivity suggests that there is little reason to adopt these technologies and their social cost is enormous. The coupling of these industries reinforces the risk of a crash; if AI goes, then some banks may go too. It’s not possible to build a national economy “for all postcodes” while only concentrating on these two industries. When commenting on Burnham’s innovation speech, I said,
“It’s a really good speech, not in my mind, one that Starmer or Reeves would have made: touching devolution of industrial planning, innovation in all industries, inclusive of Universities and life science research, and ambitious.”
Both the SNP MP speeches were pro-rejoin but linked to independence and airing the grievance that Scotland had voted to remain.
Several speakers raised the issue of the creative industries and the restrictions on touring caused by the exit from the freedom of movement.
Many speakers, inc the Lib Dems prioritised a European Defence Security Council, but no-one mentions that in order to re-establish counter terrorism & immigration co-operation the UK will need to sign up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Mike Woods, the Shadow (Tory) spokesperson, although not the only one, started with the argument that the referendum is the only democratic mandate that counts. There have been three general elections, and seven administrations since the referendum and the referendum did not confirm the withdrawal terms. The referendum’s mandate is dead. The electorate have a right to change their mind if they see fit.
Woods pointed out that the accession process may be difficult and that the poll leadership is softer if the opt-outs are not available. He also spoke of the cost of re-entry which he put at £30bn. Interestingly, he argued that “dynamic alignment” which he claimed was the policy of the Labour Government was the worst of all worlds; it restricts trade policy and product regulation while having no say in the rules of trade. He concludes that we should stay out; I disagree.
Having opened the door to rejoin, we need to go through it.
Mike Ferguson summing up for the government. The Prime Minister had made a statement earlier in the day and Ferguson was careful not to exceed that policy statement.
He spoke of the impact of Brexit on exports, where he quantified the cost, and the cost of red tape overheads, in terms of cash and company withdrawal from the export market and reminded us that it impacts trade with Northern Ireland too.
He previewed the conclusion expected now in November and the success of the “reset”, although not on energy. He stated that,
“What is planned is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition.”
And quoted the PM,
“Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain.”
Rachel Maskell intervened ask if the government could ensure
“ … that we have a proper deliberative process so that everyone in our communities can be engaged in shaping the future of Europe, to ensure that the people can co-create it with Government. Will the Minister support such a methodology?”
The suggestion was politely received.
Toby Vaughan who moved the motion, had the last word and summed up. He replied on the economics, “He needs to engage with the weight of the evidence, not the selective examples that those who oppose a closer relationship with Europe ultimately rely on.” And concluded, “I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter that is at the heart of how to build a prosperous nation for the future.”
[DL1]This is not true, Europe has grown more quickly; the larger and more mature economies have not. This is why the export path is so important.
[DL2]The UK’s Gini co-efficient is low compared with Europe.
The featured image is from the House of Commons flickr account CC BY-NC 2020.