This article looks at the development of Labour's Policy as its annual Conference approaches. It looks at the rules commitment to "voting in parts", and reproduces an NPF report reference back motion on the subject of the relationship with the EU that I shall take to my local party. My motion calls to rejoin the single market immediately and to promise to rejoin the EU in the next manifesto. To read the whole article, use the "Read More" button ...
In an article/podcast in inews, entitled "Starmer's Government sees closer ties with the EU as a key part of plans to ramp up economic growth", the issue of deals with global partners to be a key part of trying to make Britain a more attractive destination for investment is allegedly discussed. See the full article at 'RemovePaywalls.com'. I made some notes inspired or provoked by this article, which was published in late July. Although much of this is extracted quotes, I make some comments. For more, use the 'Read More' button ...
Last week, the UK and the EU met at the most senior levels in what the labour government has described as a reset of EU relations. As usual, the conclusions are best documented on the EU website where they published a joint communique. Certainly the results of the negotiations have changed few minds. While I consider that the best result would be if both sides walked out thinking they’d won, my feeling is that this was a draw, although no major breakthroughs occurred and a huge opportunity wasted, primarily due to the lack of vision and ambition on the part of the Labour government.
The words on defence co-operation are the most concrete, although further negotiations are required and while UK companies will be able to bid for work from the EU, HMG will have to contribute to the budget.
The relegation of words by recasting youth mobility as youth experience, illustrates the stubborn recidivism of the labour government and the fact is, that there has been no movement by the EU on creative workers’ freedom of movement.
The two sides have agreed to continue to talk about an agricultural deal, and greater cooperation in the electricity, carbon and energy markets. The agricultural deal is crucial so reducing paperwork checks both between Great Britain and the European Union and also between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There are several paragraphs on internal security and judicial co-operation which mention Europol but not the issue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The UK has for decades, under both Tory and Labour governments been reluctant to engage with the Charter and it seems remains so; the children of fascist and Stalinist societies put more faith in a basic law than parliamentary sovereignty. I am unclear that these paragraphs are anything more than aspirational.
The press release/communique makes clear that its consequential programmes and agreements build on the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Windsor Framework, and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and require their “full, timely, and faithful implementation”. The UK still has some work to do there as the Commission are pursuing eight infringements by the UK government of the existing agreements. This is a critical red-line for the EU.
I am interested how the closer to reality and the single market the proposals are the stronger the UK commitments to dynamic alignment, the CJEU and financial contribution are; it would seem we really are joining one agency/pillar at a time.
As many commentators, not least the UK Government observe, Starmer’s redlines have not been breached but little more progress could have been expected without some compromise and £140bn worth of GDP is at stake.
If we are to consider this as a football match, it’s probably a draw. The EU have ensured the current treaties are confirmed and that any entrance to the single market includes dynamic alignment, CJEU judicial authority and financial contributions, in exchange, the UK have obtained agreement that the Commission will engage in pre-legislative consultation. This is an important breakthrough. The defence agreement is necessary, but as noted the British government will need to contribute to the European Union’s defence budget to bid for arms contracts. The rest of the agreement are statements of ambition. The section on borders and judicial cooperation, I need to read again as I am unclear of the direction all future negotiations. Any agreement satisfactory to the UK Home Office and the European Union equivalent is not likely to be satisfactory for those of us who believe that racism fuels much of the immigration control debate.
The Tories and reform claim the agreement is a betrayal of the nine year old mandate, rejoin campaigners close to the Labour leadership such as Best for Britain, the European Movement, the LME and Sadiq Khan claim it’s a step in the right direction, the FT say and I agree that,
Labour arguably wasted some of the post-election goodwill it enjoyed last year in Brussels, through the paucity of its own ambition and its manifesto red lines insisting on no return to the EU single market, customs union or freedom of movement. Its new reset at least attempts to push up to the limits of some of those red lines.
The FT EB
The Economist also state that more is needed. [Also at archive.ph.]
It’s a better result than last time when the EU told the UK to do better.
The problem is that the UK wants a Swiss style deal where they can focus on those areas of maximum benefit to the UK economy. The EU want commitment to the full acquis. Squaring this circle is probably impossible just as fixing Brexit is.
Does it make rejoining more or less likely? I suggest neither, but the problem is the current Labour leadership and its stubborn and failed pursuit of the dying Brexit voter. …
I wrote something on JD Vance’s speech to the Munich security conference. This was part of the series of policy repositioning for the trump administration. My article was published on labour hub, in it I reference Vance’s speech to the Munich Security conference, i note the oligarch’s hypocritical and fascistic agenda, the foreshadowing of the crippling of NATO, and talk of the UK’s alternatives pointing out that we seem to be re-joining the EU one agency at a time.
I reference reports of J D Vance’s speech to the Munich security conference, where he criticised the EU and member state governments for suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters’ true beliefs. He refused to meet the German Chancellor and yet met, during an election, with the leader of the far right AfD (Alternative for Germany).
I note his arguments on free speech are partisan; US oligarchs want American rich people’s voices to be heard and amplified by privately-owned social media companies and fear Europe’s regulation of them being based on a demand for truth. We also note the hypocrisy of the US free speech advocates’ attacks on ideas, books and teachers in schools, universities and libraries in the US. His comments on not relying on foreign technology providers by which he meant China, may come to haunt him as Europe examines its defence supply chains.
Trump’s call for European NATO to increase their defence budgets to 5% of GDP is a naked attempt to build budgets for the US arms industry, just as the UK’s requests to have a side treaty on defence and security with the EU is also at least partially based on the economic interests of BAe.
Trump’s arguments about what does his money, that is, the arms shipments to Ukraine, buy, has a moral vacancy but it is clear that the view that ‘the business of America is business’ has returned to the White House. The crudity with which Trump pursues his views of US fiscal and commercial interests is echoed by the UK Labour Government in positioning its ‘EU reset’, arguing for changes in agreements which only benefit Britian from their limited, primarily electoral, point of view.
In the Labour Hub article I suggest, the choices facing the Starmer administration are bleak while Starmer seems to be seeking to avoid Trump’s tariff increases, on defence the choice is stark. The UK can either continue to act as a vassal state of the United States or develop more effective partnerships with the European Union. It should be noted that Vance has questioned the need for NATO joint command. Labour’s foundational commitment to NATO, is looking weaker than it once was.
Starmer’s ambition on EU cooperation is limited, I have argued that the UK should use the withdrawal agreement review clauses to re-enter the customs union and the single market. The suspicion is that for the Starmer Administration, the single market is a step too far because of its requirements for a free movement of labour and Labour’s fear of the Tories and Reform UK.
Today’s military questions and the need for ‘security of supply’ strongly imply that the UK should join the European Space Agency and possibly the European defence agency.
The proposed military and security side treaty is looking less and less attractive to both sides because in order to protect our democracy against the attacks from US social media companies and US owned AI search engines, the UK needs the umbrella of the EU’s competition & digital regulators, this needs membership of the single market. We have already rejoined Horizon (the R&D programme) and the Euro HPC joint undertaking, and Northern Ireland is still part of the single market. At what point do we say, we need our MEPs, Judges, Commissioners and Council seats back or will we just be rejoining the EU an agency at a time. …
I’m just back from GMB Congress 24. In previous years I have written a lot about the proceedings, but this Congress was much quieter that in previous years. This blog article, is a personal review of the Congress; it covers overleaf/below the debate on Israel and Palestine and on a future deal with the EU. It also covers my branch’s two other interventions. …
tI wrote an article posted on my linkedin blog, on Horizon Europe and the will they/won’ they attitude of the Tory Government. This refers to Another Europe’s Brexit Spotlight article which covers the issues including the fact that the scheme ‘s rules state that an associate member may not be net beneficiaries, and showing that the UK government is seeking to ensure that it is.
This is wrong in so many ways, but critically, the problem is that it would seem the British Government, seem to think they are ‘buying’ the grant, they are not, they would be buying the research output. The research output will be significantly larger than any individual stake and or any member states’ stake.
The final mistake they make, is that access to funding makes British universities and companies more attractive partners to other European companies and research institutes and thus underwrites the attractiveness of the universities to European teachers and students, and funds jobs for British based researchers. …
The GMB voted to rejoin the EU’s customs union and align with the single market yesterday. The text of the motion is below/overleaf as are the notes I used to make the speech. The debate is posted on youtube, I was supported by Joe Dharampal-Hornby. In the GMB, the Central Executive Council has the right to make amendments to all motions, these are called qualifications. The regional delegation, the moving entity, have the option to accept the qualification or have the motion opposed by the CEC. I have reproduced the qualification below. We took the view that the qualifying comments on migrants and wages are an observation not a negation of the need to re-establish the reciprocal right to find and perform work throughout the EU. The debate followed the General Secretary, Gary Smith’s interview in the Observer. …
I have been following the EU’s Conference on the Future of Europe, particularly its democracy chapter which has helped shape some thoughts. I was interested to note that the US’ route to a federal republic seemed to be a harbinger for the EU’s journey. I wrote, Subsidiarity, representation and human rights, which frankly got blown of course and became a review of Prof. Mark Stoler’s lecture on the US constitution. I had drawn inspiration from the original US restriction on direct taxation and the 10th amendment which defines the powers of the federal government and those of the States, although the 10th amendment also purports to constrain the States power by defining a right of subsidiarity to the people.
This article looks at the flawed route taken by the US Constitution and foresees with hope the EU’s [and the UK’s] adoption of new rules and rights. …
Here is a swift call to action on Labour’s National Policy Forum, on relations with the European Union. I made an extract of the document to collect what they say. Earlier this month, Labour issued its NPF report in draft form. Members have the ability, through their local parties, to amend the this report; Labour Party members have until May 29th to notify, through their CLPs, their CLP NPF Reps of changes they want to see in the draft policy document.
Perhaps the critical paragraph is,
An improved relationship with Europe
To deliver prosperity at home, it is vital to re-establish the UK as a trusted and reliable partner. As part of our mission for the UK to achieve the highest sustained economic growth in the G7, Labour will seek to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with Europe while maintaining its new role outside of the single market and customs union.
Labour’s NATIONAL policy FORUM dRAFT rEPORT 2023
I believe that the UK should rejoin the European Union but that a first step is that, it is necessary to rejoin the customs union and single market to alleviate and reverse the decline in economic activity and prosperity; it is now obvious to the vast majority of the UK population that this is the direction required. I also believe a failure to get the position on the EU right will jeopardise Labour’s electoral prospects.
Labour must,
1. call for a new relationship with the EU involving the adoption of the single market and customs union, including a reciprocal freedom of movement to work and that as part of this, Labour must repeal the cruel hostile environment.
2. commit to rejoin Horizon Europe and Erasmus+
3. add to the draft the recent promise to permit EU citizen/residents to vote in UK Parliamentary elections
The Labour Movement for Europe are proposing that, the Party must promise to negotiate direct access to the single market and a selective visa waiver system. We believe we must commit to the single market’s free movement of labour with no sectoral reservations but wish the LME well. We think their position will be less acceptable to the EU since their position is that the four freedoms are indivisible. To me it’s an example of our continued attachment to “Extrawurst”!
The featured image is one of mine. CC DFL 2017 BY-SA …
I attended the EU’s citizens panel on virtual worlds over the weekend. One of the most inspirational aspects of this event was the ability to meet so many people from across the European Union. I took the opportunity, to talk to some about how they felt about British re-entry. One Dutchman felt we hadn’t suffered enough, and that we needed to wait. One German was anxious that we re-joined so as to reduce his tax burden. Another very well-informed Dutchman, said he felt that British public opinion under estimated what the EU would ask to allow us to rejoin and one Finn, said his condition on us re-joining was that we be forced to enter FIFA competitions as a single nation. I think this was a joke, but he seemed quite upset about Finland’s record against the UK nations’ football teams.
My informed Dutch correspondent started by talking about the euro. Some of what he said particularly on the Euro was a bit worrying, but it’s a price worth paying if that’s what it takes. I suggested that the Swedish precedent on the currency is important and that there may be dangers to the EU in attempting to subsume another global reserve currency too quickly. I also wonder if those nations hosting cities that have replaced London’s international financial trading capability, really want to see the London market makers able to trade in euro instruments so soon. To me more importantly on the currency and macro-economic convergence, are the limitations entrenched in the ‘stability and growth pact’. Debt levels and deficits should be the result of a democratic mandate and not embedded in an unchangeable treaty; the need to breach the stability and growth pact limits during the pandemic is a proof point to this truth. Perhaps the EU member states will take the opportunity to amend the requirement of Stability and Growth Pact. We agreed that the other opt outs are all gone; the UK will have to forgo its financial rebate, our charter of fundamental rights exemptions and comply with and join the Schengen treaty. These terms are acceptable to me. We need to start talking about them. …