Friday 1 December 2023

Should Labour be bolder about Brexit?

One of the benefits of having re-enabled comments on this blog, to me at least, is to be able to see what issues get flagged up by readers as interesting or debatable. Last week’s post was mainly about the government’s Autumn Statement, but many of the comments focused on my far briefer observations about Labour’s post-Brexit policy. I have written about that at length in the past, but it is clearly an issue which is becoming more pressing as the next election gets closer, with some recent well-informed speculation (though that is all it is) that it could be as early as May 2024. And, of course, recent and current opinion polls suggest that Labour will win, which also adds salience to the question of how they would approach the UK-EU relationship in government.

Curtice’s analysis of the Labour vote

This issue has also been getting fresh attention because of recent remarks by the eminent polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice about the structure of current voter support for Labour. He suggests, in quite forceful terms, that “Labour’s presumption that they couldn’t get into an election winning position without fundamentally changing the character of their support vis à vis Brexit has been demonstrated to be false”. He makes three key points to explain and justify that. First, that those 2016 leave voters whose support Labour have gained since the 2019 election are atypical leave voters in that they tend to be those who now support re-joining the EU. Second, in line with general shifts against support for Brexit, those people who did vote Labour in 2019 are even more likely to be opposed to Brexit now than they were then. And, third, new voters, who were too young to vote in 2016 and/or 2019 are overwhelming pro-Labour and anti-Brexit.

The implication of this might be (I am not sure that Curtice has said this in terms, but it is certainly the conclusion that many are drawing from what he said) that Labour could have adopted, and could still adopt, a more strongly anti-Brexit position without threatening its chances of winning the election. That would, presumably, mean adopting a policy of seeking to re-join the EU or, at least, the single market (and/or entering into a comprehensive customs union with the EU). On Curtice’s analysis, such a policy would go with the grain of most of those intending to vote Labour. It would also (this is my view, not what Curtice said) be a far more credible economic policy because of the now strong evidence, discussed in my previous post, of the damage Brexit has done, and will continue to do, to growth and investment.

Economics and honesty

The economic argument appears to me to be unassailable, and as I observed last week it is quite dishonest for Labour to suggest that any changes that could realistically be made to the existing Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) would make much economic difference. Labour’s proposals shouldn’t be entirely dismissed, though, as they will smooth some of the roughest edges of what Frost and Johnson agreed. There is also some validity in Labour’s argument that, from the perspective of investment, there is a value simply in providing stability and consistency. That was the message from business (£) at this week’s ‘global investment summit’, and Labour’s commitment to maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU speaks to that. There is also value in possible improvement to security cooperation, and in a general improvement in the tone of relations with the EU. But the benefits of what can be done within the TCA framework shouldn’t be over-stated.

That doesn’t mean getting het up about Labour’s ‘make Brexit work’ slogan which, vapid and irritating as it is, is no more than slogan. Nor is it to make the common criticism that Starmer is indulging in ‘cakeism’ with his proposals. That is off-beam, in that things like a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) or Veterinary deal, a TCA mobility chapter, and a security pact have been on offer from the EU in that past, and if Starmer pursues them it will be on a something-for-something basis, not the something-for-nothing which defines cakeism. But, as someone commenting on last week’s post under the name ‘El Fred’ put it, it could be regarded as a kind of ‘shrinkflated cupcakeism’ if that means that Starmer is at least implying that it would be possible to yield significantly larger benefits without changing the fundamental structure of the TCA.

One issue here, economics aside, is simply that it would be a refreshing antidote to the years of political dishonesty about Brexit if Labour were to tell the truth. After all, it is dishonesty which got us into this Brexit mess and, whether in relation to Brexit or anything else, it is honesty which the public say is what they most want from politicians. At the least, honesty would mean Labour being open about the fact that their post-Brexit proposals will make very little economic difference. But, refreshing as that might be, it would not be a viable policy position in itself, since it would invite the obvious demand for them to develop proposals which would make such a difference. That takes us back, then, to some version of ‘rejoining’, with the implication of the Curtice analysis being that this would not preclude Labour being in an election-winning position.

Could Labour change policy?

I don’t question for a moment that Curtice is right in his account of the structure of the Labour vote. But I’m not convinced that it carries the implication that Labour could adopt some version of a re-join policy without suffering electorally. One problem is just that there may be a difference between the overall structure of the Labour vote, as outlined by Curtice, and its structure within particular Labour marginal seats and Labour target seats. I don’t know, and it would only be possible to know through constituency-level polling. But I assume Labour conduct such polling and, if so, perhaps it is this which explains their stance but, of course, the results of these polls are not in the public domain.

Leaving that speculation aside, for Labour to espouse any version of re-joining would not just be one policy amongst others, an uncontroversial addition to their existing proposals. It would inevitably become the major focus of the campaign, overwhelming every other debate. That would carry huge dangers for Labour because, despite what Curtice says about the structure of their vote, it doesn’t follow that voters who support re-join see this as the central political issue, or that they would support another referendum, which would certainly be a necessary prelude to re-joining the EU or even the single market [1].

On the first point, of course some Labour voters do see Brexit as the major issue, but there will be many shades of strength of feeling about that, even amongst some who would vote to re-join. Remainers and re-joiners are not a homogenous group, and most readers (as well as the writer!) of this blog are hardly likely to be representative of them. So the danger for Labour is that they are seen as ‘banging on about Brexit’ when it is not the priority issue for the voters. The LibDems (although for them the electoral calculations will be different) also seem alert to this danger. For, indeed, current polls show that only 15% of the electorate think ‘leaving the EU’ is amongst the top three issues facing the country, and just 13% of the 18-24 age group do so. Even amongst 2016 remain voters the figure is only 22%, amongst LibDem voters it is 23% and amongst Labour voters it is 20%. It’s true that the issue that does most concern voters, ‘the economy’, is inextricably bound up with Brexit, as are some of the others, but it doesn’t follow that voters see it in those terms or, if they do, that they see it as the main factor.

On the second point, recent polling evidence suggests that only 39% of the population support another referendum being held in the next five years. That rises sharply to 63% amongst those who intend to vote Labour but, also amongst Labour-intending voters, 25% are opposed to such a referendum (the split amongst 2016 remain voters is almost identical). Even looking two terms ahead, to a referendum within the next ten years, the figures remain similar at 69% and 17% [2]. Again, it’s not clear what strength of feeling attaches to these views, but there must be at least some who are opposed to another referendum so strongly that the prospect of one would dissuade them from voting Labour, and at least some, perhaps many, who are in favour but whose support for it is fairly lukewarm, at least to the extent of not regarding it as a priority for the next Labour government.

How would changing Labour’s policy affect the Tory vote?

There’s another important campaign issue in this which Curtice’s analysis ignores (or, at least, it does in the clip I am discussing). Labour’s Brexit position is not just about the structure of the Labour vote, it also affects the structure of the opposition vote. If Labour put forward a re-join policy, that would enable the Tories to re-group and rally around a ‘defend Brexit’ campaign, galvanizing its core vote and, in particular, making it much easier for them to hoover up Reform Party voters who, as the opinion polls stand, look set to split the right-wing, Brexit-supporting vote. For these are voters to whom Brexit really is a defining issue.

At the moment, attempts to give a ‘vote Farage, get Starmer’ message to such voters have little chance of success. They don’t loathe Starmer as they did Corbyn, and they think Labour are probably going to win in any case. So they have a free-hit protest vote against Rishi Sunak, who they don’t regard as ‘real Conservative’ anyway. But the moment Labour adopted a re-join policy all that would change, and with current opinion polls giving Reform as much as 10% of the vote that could have a big effect. Perhaps that effect would be enough to keep Labour out of power but, even if not, then it would certainly be enough to reduce its majority, and enough to stave off a possible Tory wipe-out.

This point, just on its own, makes Labour’s stance explicable, and might also carry weight with those rejoin voters tempted to ‘punish’ Labour for the insufficiency of its Brexit policy. There is a real, epochal chance for the Tory Party to be not just defeated but annihilated in the election. It’s a chance that actually arises from Brexit itself, in that it is this which has created a schism in the electoral coalition between ideologues and pragmatists that normally holds the British right together. Small wonder that Labour don’t want to squander the possibility of such a prize by gifting the Tories a way of preventing such a schism.

What would changing policy mean for a Labour government?

This reasoning becomes all the stronger by considering what would it mean for Labour in government, even assuming it could win an election on a re-join platform. That could only mean re-joining becoming the dominant political issue for its entire first term, and an issue where success could by no means be guaranteed. It would mean holding another referendum with all that, by now, we surely know that entails for marginalizing every other issue. And it would mean winning it, which is far from certain especially if, as would surely be vital to settle the matter, it was this time held on the basis of a super-majority being needed.

Then, if all that was achieved, it would just be the beginning of a prolonged process of application to join, an application which might well fail. For, as has so often been pointed out, the EU, and its individual members, are likely to have grave reservations about UK membership. Those reservations would be all the greater if the referendum were again held as a simple majority vote, and that vote was only narrowly to re-join. But even a super-majority would not in itself eradicate the fear that, in a few years, with a new government, the UK would change its mind again. And even if that hurdle were overcome, the accession process would take time, and might not be completed by the end of Labour’s term of office. So it would go into the following election without having delivered its flagship policy.

A better approach?

Taken together, these arguments provide a strong case for the approach Labour have adopted. Where I think they have made a serious mistake is in being so dogmatic in opposing any form of re-joining, ever. It is easy to understand why, because the Tories would have exploited any ambivalence in order to claim that Labour has a ‘secret plan’ to re-join. They have tried that anyway (£), but it has had little traction precisely because it is so clear that there is no such plan. And, by the way, the Tories’ attempts in this regard give further weight to the point that, from their point of view, a Labour re-join policy would be an electoral boon, and perhaps the only thing that can save them.

However, understandable as the dogmatism of permanently ruling out re-joining may be, it has created a nasty straitjacket for the future. As I argued exactly a year ago, I think a better policy would have been to say that re-joining would have to await a strong popular and cross-party consensus, putting the responsibility with the Tories, where it properly lies, and, in the meantime, to propose improving the TCA, if possible, without over-claiming for its economic effects. This would have the virtue of honesty, an honesty which would also provide the political justification for the limitations of Labour’s policy.

Facing up to reality

With all this said, whatever I think, or whatever anyone may think of the arguments in this post, what seems unarguable is that Labour are not going to change their current Brexit position, and that becomes all the more so the closer the election gets. Even if it isn’t until the end of next year, there just isn’t time to make, communicate, and consolidate support for such a change. So, even if it is true that Starmer could or should have had a bolder position from the outset, it isn’t going to happen now.

Thus, like it or not, for voters dissatisfied with, or even disgusted by, the current position the choice will be whether to use their vote to make a Labour government or a Conservative government more likely (I phrase it that way as, in different constituencies, the voting implication of that will be different). Of course, that choice isn’t just about Brexit, but, on Brexit, even given the limitations of Labour’s policy it would be wrong to think that there is no difference between them and the Conservatives, so it’s a choice that matters and, anyway, it’s the only choice that is going to be on offer.

In a sense, the choice facing the most committed re-joiners is the mirror-image of that facing the most committed leavers. The latter have the choice of voting for what, in their terms, would be the Brexit purism of the Reform Party or the hopelessly compromised and deeply suspect Conservative Party. At the moment, it looks as if enough will choose ‘purity’ to keep the Conservatives from power. The choice on the other side, for ‘purist re-joiners’, is whether they want to do the same to Labour.

 

Notes

[1] There is a view sometimes expressed amongst advocates of single market (SM) membership that re-joining that, rather than the EU, would not require a referendum. There are three variants of that view. One is that, unlike EU membership, SM membership would not be a constitutional change. The second is that SM membership would have been compatible with the 2016 referendum result, and so would not require another referendum. The third is that, if Labour won an election on a rejoin SM policy, that would provide all the mandate needed.

All three versions, even if legally correct (which is arguable), are hopelessly naïve politically (in ways reminiscent of the LibDems’ ‘revoke Article 50’ policy in 2019 which, as I argued at the time, was deeply flawed both in principle and as a political tactic and strategy). For one thing, they all imply that it would be legitimate for a future Tory government to reverse policy, which also makes it an unappealing prospect for the EU/ EFTA. But that is part of a bigger issue: whatever we now do, it surely has to be permanent, and needs to be unequivocally seen as legitimate, rather than achieved by what is, or could easily be represented as, some sleight-of-hand or trickery. The Brexiters failed to achieve that, even with a referendum. If they had succeeded, we wouldn’t even be debating these matters any more. So if we have learnt nothing else from them, and from the Brexit saga generally, it is that such a mistake can never be repeated.

[2] This poll also shows that support for an immediate referendum is much weaker, with only 42% in favour and 48% against amongst Labour-intending voters (and almost exactly the same amongst 2016 remain voters). But it’s not clear what weight to put on that as the question was about a referendum “in 2023”, a pretty absurd one given that it was asked in August 2023. So I think the five- and ten-year questions I’ve referred to are the more important ones. Even so, the answer to the ‘in 2023’ question does underscore the point that support for re-join if there were to be another referendum is the not the same as support for attempting to re-join by holding another referendum.

100 comments:

  1. Chris from The Netherlands1 December 2023 at 08:49

    As a foreign observer, a question. Instead of talking about rejoining one way or another, is it not more sensible for the economy to be instrumental and provide business stability by cutting back red tape on exports and imports as a first little step? That would push costs down, make it possible to collect VAT and import charges (there are no border checks right now, but alignment would give tax rewards with a smaller contingent of border inspections). And raise trust of foreign investors by doing so, proving the UKG Labour government is supporting business? A pragmatic set of agreements with the EU on specific subjects? As I said, observations of a foreigner

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, interesting read. I agree, the chances of Labour adopting anything remotely close to rejoin/customs union/single market in the next year are zero. Why would they upset the polling position when they're so far ahead?

      From a business point of view, Labour's commitment to stability and alignment is huge. Business has already accepted that with Starmer, Reeves, McFadden, Reynolds etc, and the commitment to a sensible economic strategy etc, Labour has much the more compelling position. Anyone who was at the Labour Conference in Liverpool will have seen plenty of evidence of real engagement between business and Labour. Couple all of that with creating a truly stable environment for private investment to recover and many in the business community will be breathing sighs of relief.

      But looking further forward, into a potential second Labour term, and there may well be scope for a move to reverse Brexit. I interpret Starmer's "never rejoin" words as being his personal commitment never to lead Labour back in, but not words that are intended to bind Labour under a different leader. If Labour can get in next year and then consolidate around a slowly recovering economy, with more to put into crippled public services, there may well be space for a more radical position to be taken for a second (or even third) term, under a successor to Starmer.

      As you say, the economics of Brexit are ultimately very poor for the UK, all we can really do is minimise the harm. I put that point to Rachel Reeves at a Fabians Conference two years ago, when I was asking how the UK could really achieve a step change in growth without regaining unfettered access to the EU market. She acknowledged the problem but certainly didn't give any indication about rejoining etc.

      Delete
  2. Hello Chris, excellent post as usual. I'm surprised you don't mention Ursula von der Leyen's Brexit intervention though. This week, she almost - not quite - invited Britain to apply to rejoin the EU. I wonder if this isn't exactly what will happen once a safe-pair-of-hands government is back in charge of the UK. And that the fact of our being invited (rather than our knocking on the door and begging) will make rejoining seem a less bitter pill even to those who continue to naysay...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks very much. Yes, I did think of mentioning it but TBH I'm not sure what weight or meaning to put on it. I didn't read it as being (even 'not quite') an invitation and, though she's ofc a very significant figure I don't really think it matters much what any one individual says about this. If we have learned nothing else from Brexit it should be the reality of it being a rule-based organization of member states, so any UK rejoining would be by due process and would require all the MS's support.

      Delete
    2. I might suggest that the UK needs to be thinking more about having a relationship with the EU akin to what Switzerland has(i.e. FofM, integration with the single market on a sector by sector basis etc.) before talking about the very long term prospect of rejoining. I am still not sure many in the UK truly understand the basics of the relationship Switzerland and Norway have with the EU.

      Delete
    3. One common aspect of this most recent invitation, those which have come before and similar statements made in the context of member candidate nations in the East, is that there is never a time frame attached.

      Such statements are more about keeping possibilities on people's minds than anything else.

      Delete
    4. @Tim One thing that we need to bear in mind when thinking about the Swiss relationship with the EU is that the EU is not particularly happy with the overall state of that relationship, because the sector-by-sector integration deals keep needing updating to match the latest internal EU changes, and Switzerland is not willing to just follow the latest EU changes the way member states (who get to vote on those changes) do.

      We would have to overcome the EU's reticence to enter into a similar set of negotiations with us to make such a deal plausible; from the EU's perspective, they don't want to get caught up in indefinite negotiations when they could instead have us as a member state.

      Delete
  3. Excellent analysis as usual. The PM still peddles in desperation the mantras about FOM and the EU as if we still lived in 2016. We could see this week during PMQ's that Labour doesn't want to get close to a dicussion about it. I agree it is time to take the risk and change the narrative, or at least try to move it away from the toxicity of those days. The society has changed and is looking for a leader to guide them out of the dark.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Totally agree with this analysis.

    The 3 main priorities for Labour are
    1. Climate Change. Here Ed Milliband needs to have a long talk with Dieter Helm.
    2. Large devolution to the English regions and 3 Nations(especially Wales) along the lines of Redcliff-Maud not Gordon Brown's dogs dinner.
    3. Massive Tax Simplification which taxes Capital at the same rate as Labour to improve productivity and boost the wages of workers (eg scrap NI). See Mirrlees Review and most output from IFS and Resolution Foundation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are these really Labour's priorities ? What about growth and inflation - in other words real living standards. Unless they can move the dial they will become about as popular as Brexit.

      Delete
    2. What about growth? 🤷🏼‍♂️

      Delete
  5. If the Conservative party is ever going to be purged of its Eurosceptic madness, they really need to suffer an electoral wipeout. I'm still doubtful even that would be enough, but it might be a start towards cross-party agreement on rejoining. With that in mind, I'll accept Labour doing what they are currently doing, much as it galls me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tories ie UKIP++, deserve to be totally obliterated for what they've inflicted on the country since 2016. Brexit, Covid, mismanagement, Johnson, Truss and her economic sabotage, the hopeless Sunak, 30p Lee (six bob nob), Rees-Mogg, and all the other brain-dead Tory MPS too numerous to mention, destruction of our standing abroad, reluctance to tackle the cost of living debacle, and the rest of the litany of examples of terrible government. Only then can we discuss like adults the possibility of single market accession at the very least.

      Delete
  6. Vote tactically to annihilate the Tories, sounds good. Forever opposition for the swine.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whilst there may be many good reasons to Rejoin, the timing is not right. As well as cross parry consensus and a super majority, there will need to be honesty about the terms. This could include adopting the Euro and joining Schengen. Either would test, substantially, current support for Rejoin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brexit supporter Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, suggested that if you told people what re-joining would entail a large number would likely be against doing so. He then did just that to people in a survey he ran, describing what we might have to accept, loading the dice against re-joining so to speak. The results were 52% still in favour of re-joining, 48% against it. Obviously not the result he was expecting. He dismissed this as "barely statistically significant", which is interesting because it means that the country was allowed to make itself poorer on a referendum vote which, in his own words as a Brexiter, was "barely statistically significant".

      Delete
    2. I doubt that either of these two would provide a significant hurdle.

      An anti-join campaign would of course try to capitalize on them but any pro-join campaign would be prepared for that.

      Especially Schengen area membership should be easy to sell given the increase in wait times on borders caused by Brexit.

      The Schengen agreement is one of the improvements in European cooperation that has tangible benefits for everyday citizens without creating any drawbacks.

      All the extra effort for making it work, e.g. strengthened control of external borders, fall into the responsibilities of the state.

      Delete
  8. Excellent though overview thanks. Two points:
    1). When Starmer talks of "making Brexit work" I understand that what he means is to fix the EU-UK TCA which is WTO terms with tariffs at zero but no agreements of mutual equivalence of standards (MEA's) to overcome the myriads of sectoral non-tariff-barriers (NTB's) in modern trade.
    For example there is no Sanitary Phytosanitary (SPS) deal
    There are no MEA's because the ERG refused to sign any claiming that they 'infringed sovereignty' which is nonsense given that Truss rolled over the same EU MEA's in the 'new' bilateral deals with other nations such as Japan.

    Michel Barnier notes that in the transition period he asked Frost when the UK would sign an SPS deal (part and parcel of the NIP) & was told that the UKG would never apply for an SPS but that the EU must simply accept the UK as a sovereign equal and that its rules and regs equivalent to the EU without any signed promises.

    So right now that EU unilaterally and pragmatically accepts that UK regulations are convergent with those of the EU having just left the EU but absent an MEA the EU requires that all UK imports be accompanied by all paperwork and inspected which is costly and causes delays..

    So Starmer is correct that the immediate priority for the
    UK is negotiating & signing the needed MEA's and turning the TCA into a fit-for-purpose comprehensive FTA which will allow as frictionless as possible trade in goods in the geographic area of the SM such as enjoyed by Canada in its CETA deal, but he must be honest that in no way does any FTA allow seamless borderless trade in goods or full free trade in services that the UK used to enjoy.

    2.) You are absolutely correct that rejoining the EU/EEA is a very long ways off & Remainers must accept that Brexit is 'done'.
    Rejoining requires an application for accession & must be accompanied by proof that it is the will of the majority of people in the UK.
    Such proof must be via "the usual constitutional means" of the applicant nation and for the UK that means a) an Act of Parliament backing the application and b) a new referendum with majority support
    However given the decades of anti-EU sentiment and the narrow margin for Leave in the 2016 in my opinion the EU will insist that the new Act is passed by a large majority in Parliament supported by all major parties & the referendum is passed by at least a 60% majority.
    I cannot see these conditions being met anytime soon.

    The above is merely to have the application accepted for starting accession talks and then a whole raft of other issues will arise such as membership of the Euro, the former opt outs from EU law, the financial rebates etc. There is no doubt that while a majority may want to rejoin they will want it on the same sort of terms as the UK had before - British exceptionalism is very much still around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would question if a second referendum is required for an EEA or Swiss type arrangement with the EU. I really don't see any reason why it should be. I more interesting argument is whether free movement of people should be the subject of a referendum. Again I am not sure why it should be.

      I actually think the larger issue with improving the TCA as Starmer suggests is the UK is already getting very close to the ceiling in terms of improving the TCA at which point the EU will rightfully demand free movement of people ala Switzerland.

      The interesting question is whether Starmer will backtrack on FoM if that is the price to get any improvement in the TCA.

      Delete
    2. 1.) Joining EEA alone requires a request for accession to the EU Commission & has the same requirement of proving its the will of the majority in the UK via 'the usual constitutional means' of the UK.
      Since being in the EEA is (just like being in the EU), a constitutional state of being and not merely a trade deal between third parties then a new ref will be needed. EEA only members obey all EU law related to the single market and its adjudicated via the EFTA Court which sits under the ECJ.
      Laws in EEA only member states are automatically updated mirroring changes in the EU and while EEA only members have observer status and are consulted closely they hav no vote in EU bodies. So the UK would be a rule-taker.
      Joining the EEA alone would also need the permission of the three existing members and in the past they have had grave reservations due to UK Euroscepticism .

      2) the TCA is a very poor quality trade deal nowhere near a fit-for-purpose comprehensive FTA such as the EU has with Canada. For the purpose of trade in goods the TCA has max friction due to a lack of the usual sectoral MEA's to get over NTB's. It can be hugely improved and I think the EU would be amenable

      3) The issue for the UK is that it wants free trade in services but no FTA between third parties anywhere has free trade in services as the UK enjoyed in the single market. The only way to recover that is to rejoin the EEA or EU/EEA.

      4) There is no possibility of a 'Swiss' style deal to do so
      Here is why - since 1994, the EFTA Secretariat has assisted Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway in the management of the EEA Agreement which brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA of the 4 EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".
      3) Switzerland the 4th EFTA member did not join the EEA Agreement but instead decided on the route of negotiating scores of sectoral bilateral trade deals with the EU and has ended up with a trade relationship with the EU very similar to the EEA Agreement but with the critical difference that there are no automatic updates in Swiss law & rules as EU rules change and this has meant a very cumbersome and expensive system of both the EU and CH having permanent ministries just to negotiate and update the bilateral deals and for Switzerland a constant stream of referendums.

      EU-sceptic right wing & left wing parties in Switzerland are particularly opposed to FOM & have successfully blocked a lot of needed changes on the Swiss side and yet demand the EU give CH the privileges of being (de facto) in the SM.

      EU has told the Swiss that its no longer prepared to continue endless negotiations and that Switzerland must either sign up to the EEA Agreement or steadily diverge from the EU and suffer loss of trade.

      Opinion polls show that 75% of Swiss would support joining the EEA Agreement but the main right wing party in the Swiss Federal Assembly has blocked the law promulgating such a national referendum for almost 4 years already. They can do so because while they only hold 25% of seats in the Council the Swiss federal parliament requires consensus of all parties to pass legislation. However eventually Swiss business interests will force the issue.

      The relevance to the UK is that Brexiters thought theycould get 'a Swiss type deal' of scores of sectoral bilateral agreements which they will pick and choose the conditions. They want to have their cake and to eat it.
      Hence the EU has ben clear its not interested in a 'Swiss' option for the UK.

      Delete
  9. I think Labour have got this about right, although Professor Grey is probably correct to say that the position may be too dogmatic. The problem with 'Rejoin' as a policy is that it is unrealistic in the short to medium term for all the obvious reasons which the article addresses. If Labour tilted towards Rejoin, it would open all sorts of questions - on what terms, would we have to join the Euro, freedom of movement, would we even be welcome? etc etc. In purely political terms, it would not be sensible for Labour to poke all those hornets' nests for a policy which is not practical anyway in the next few years.
    Better to do what they are doing: work on closer cooperation with the EU and on what can be achieved in terms of addressing the damage Brexit is doing. All of that would in any case be necessary as a first stage of moving towards an eventual application to rejoin, if we ever get to the stage where that is practical.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It took Britain 12 years and three attempts to join the EEC, and that was when it had only six members with a veto. Now it’s 27, and may soon be more.

    It cannot be assumed that a veto will only be used if the UK evinces insufficient commitment to the EU project. Spain will surely be more than ready to veto a British application if its territorial claims over Gibraltar are not resolved to its satisfaction, for instance. We are truly never going back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what the "stay out" campaign will say if there is a future rejoin referendum - along with the "we'll have to join the Euro and Schengen" broken record old classics.
      The last time I looked, out of the EU 27 around half have the Euro, and the members that don't are not going to adopt the Euro anytime soon, and many don't have any intention to join.
      The EU of different circles is a future that the UK (if it still exsists) could join. Especially as Britain now has one of the most pro-EU sentiments.
      Anyhow, in a world where populism is resurgent again, Britain may well be a key country to actively reject right wing populism (for that is what the Tories are now).

      Delete
    2. Suppose that Britain is indeed a bulwark against populism. That in itself might be a reason to reject its candidacy, as some populists will likely be in power in EU member states and would not want a major anti-populist country joining and then hindering their goals.

      Delete
  11. I agree Labour has a pragmatic policy position on this, although they do somehow combine it with a rather off-putting pro-Brexit/anti-Europe language. They don't want Europe to be the focus of election campaigning, and there is very little they could promise since any UK government has relatively little negotiation leverage from our current position. One does assume the EU would want to see a broad public and political consensus before ever considering a closer arrangement.

    However what mystifies me is how quiet the LibDems are on the issue. They have consistently argued for Remain and as far as I know (I haven't looked to see if there are recent updates) still have a policy directed towards eventual re-joining. In the General Election their reasonable hopes can only be for taking a few tens of seats, mostly from the Conservatives. A clear position that makes them distinct from Labour, and welcoming to habitual Tory voters who don't share the far right position of the current government (so most likely pro-Europe), might help them pick up those seats. They should be more vocal on their environmental position too, I would have thought they have enough in common with the Greens to consider an electoral pact in some constituencies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Like everything else, there are diminishing returns to closer ties with the EU. There’s already tariff-free trade, within the next couple of years there’ll be digitised, paperless trade as both sides unilaterally modernise their customs processes, an SPS agreement can eliminate a large proportion of checks on the goods that require the most intensive checks. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications never progressed far even in the Single Market.

    Let’s assume that Labour are successful in attaining their specified goals regarding the TCA. How much more benefit might really be gained by actually rejoining the Single Market?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Free movement of British nationals in the EU?

      Delete
    2. Frictionless trade, simplification of procedures, freedom of movement of British people, free to live, retire, love, work... in 27 countries with minimal paperwork, Erasmus plan for our students... I could go on.

      Delete
    3. There is no reason why Britain couldn’t sign a FoM treaty and remain outside of the EU, or sign such treaties (or approximations thereof) with individual member states, as it already has with Ireland. Because EU member states control their working visa policy regarding non-EU nationals.

      Delete
    4. You sound like that genius who said was going to negotiate with Germany alone and ignore Brussels because of the German car industry.

      Delete
    5. Anon 21:40: all but the first of these could reasonably be attained without SM membership. And a frictionless environment is not necessarily a good thing — it both enables and hinders. If frictionless trade is a good thing, however, then its benefits over the smooth and streamlined trade feasible outside the SM is probably well, well into the realms of diminishing returns.

      Delete
    6. Anon 9:25, it’s just a fact that EU member states control migration from non-EU countries. It’s just a fact that the UK has already agreed a post-Brexit FoM arrangement with an EU member state. Other EU member states could make such arrangements with the UK if both sides were willing. Given the concentration of UK emigrants in a small number of EU members, the practical effects of our pre-Brexit FoM could be roughly approximated with agreements with a handful of EU members. It’s a question of willingness, which of course may not be there on one sides or other or both.

      Delete
    7. "It’s just a fact that the UK has already agreed a post-Brexit FoM arrangement with an EU member state. "

      The agreement with Spain has not been finalized yet and it is in principle only for people who are resident in Gibraltar, not UK citizens in general.

      "the practical effects of our pre-Brexit FoM could be roughly approximated with agreements with a handful of EU members."

      It would be a very rough approximation even if it would be done with all EU members.
      And at considerable diplomatic cost for all involved countries.

      Even Spain, which is in a different position with Gibraltar, has not seen it worthwhile to include UK citizens in general.

      Delete
    8. We've already seen that movie when those brilliant Brexit secretaries tried to divide and break the integrity of the SM and returned to London with their hands in their pockets. Somebody need to install a few updates.

      Delete
    9. The post-Brexit FoM deal is with Ireland, not Spain.

      In 2019 only six EU countries (including Ireland) hosted more than 50,000 UK citizens as residents, according to Statista (can’t link the webpage)

      Delete
    10. It's an interesting question, anon@1/12@16.14, in that although just about every analyst I know of says (as I do) that the various possible changes within the TCA framework won't make much economic difference compared with loss of SM/CU, I don't think I've very seen anyone quantify that claim. BTW I wouldn't put too much store on digitization, at least in the short-term (such claims are almost always overblown). BTW2 are you sure it's true that there's been little progress on MR of prof qualifications within SM? That's not my impression - what are the main professions where there is no MR?

      Delete
    11. There wasn't a post Brexit FoM deal with Ireland. The Common Travel Area (CTA) existed before the EU and long before brexit.

      Delete
  13. Chris - two questions:

    1) I get why Labour don’t advocate having a referendum to rejoin. Would it be possible to tease out more as to why they rule out rejoining ever?

    2) What are the chances/odds that Labour might adopt a more flexible position and look for a bipartisan position on then possibility of rejoining sometime in the distant future?

    I think going bipartisan could also be political shrewd and reach out to Tory pro- europeans types such as myself and offer a political haven/santuary should the Conservatives go ‘full Braverman’ after the next election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Don't conflate a referendum with rejoining. The 1976 referendum took place years after we had joined. Labour rules out both a referendum and the ambition to rejoin. That's the policy. No policy is for ever, especially in international relations.
      2) A "bipartisan" position must refer to a Lab-Con agreement. On this issue, that is impossible right now since the Tories are split. However, a consensus on the EU is surely a prerequisite for any successful application to join the EU. The last thing the EU wants is a replay of the Brexit fiasco. That consensus would be an alignment of policy between the major political parties (whichever they may be).

      Delete
    2. How can you hold a referendum on something you don’t have the power to fulfil? Britain had the power to trigger Article 50 and leave. It does not have the power to join the EU, as any other country can just say ‘non’ regardless of any referendum result.

      A referendum would therefore split the country, consume a vast proportion of the government’s bandwidth, and even if successful might only lead to abject humiliation at the hands of Luxembourg.

      Delete
  14. A deal on Gibraltar was reported on Wednesday as being close, with Cameron as the UK interlocutor. The deal creates a Schengen border with Spain including the fourth freedom. But, Chris, you have no comment on this. Cameron is constructing what we may call a Chipping Norton Framework to match Sunak's Windsor Framework. The latter is being blocked by the DUP (with Brexity support). Will the former be blocked? Where does that leave Cameron, Sunak, the Tories and Gibraltar's attachment to the UK? If it isn't blocked, where does that leave us all?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A broader question I would ask is what makes the TCA more legitimate without a referendum(although heavily endorsed by the Tory manifesto in 2019) than SM membership or partial Swiss style SM membership. At least some leave voters didn't want the TCA instead preferring a no-deal WTO outcome. Yet there was a never a referendum put on offer asking that question.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any movement by Labour towards rejoining the EU prior to the general election would only grant the Tories a "Hail, Mary" reprieve of campaigning on "Keep Brexit Done." One of the most consistent themes of Brexit has been the tedious betrayal narrative and this would only play into the hands of Farage and the ERG and help them whip up the Red Wall voters once more.

    Far better to allow the Tory civil war to continue and hope for a Canada 1993-style annihilation. There, too, the ruling Conservatives were attacked on their right flank by a party called Reform which split their core vote, taking them from 167 seats to two, despite winning 16% of the vote. Good old FPTP for you. A similar result here next year would reduce Sunak and chums to four MPs. It won't happen but if it did, Labour would be in a commanding position to reach out to Europe. With a prize like that on offer and the Tories self-immolating, why would Starmer want to grant them any gifts?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You might find John Curtice's fuller analysis on party voting and intentions on rejoining in his talks to/at UKICE lunchtime sessions. He did a precis at the European Movement AGM last week in Manchester. Interesting that 'taking back control' is still the issue that Leave voters feel is why Brexit is important for them. I know........

    ReplyDelete
  18. Turn the upcoming election into a 'Get Brexit Undone' election, and then hopefully have a clear majority.
    Be clear that 'how and when' would be up for bipartisan debate, but that the direction of travel must be to own up and admit Brexit isn't good for the UK, admit there's work to do, and let the people decide.
    The Conservatives will implode trying to defend the incomprehensible, unworkable and unexplainable, and be a laughing stock within a week.
    Fortune favours the Brave!

    ReplyDelete
  19. It’s a funny old world where in the next General Election the Conservatives will be accusing the Labour Party of dishonesty in hiding its pro-EU sentiments and many voters will be supporting the Labour Party because they think that accusation is true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As we live in a parliamentary democracy, where the party commanding a majority in the commons can form a government and pass laws, why should we go through the pain, drama and distraction of another protracted referendum?

    I don't see why Labour couldn't pledge to apply for single market / customs union membership in their manifesto. If they win a majority, they have a mandate to carry out their manifesto.

    Obviously rejoining the EU would be more sensitive due to the way we left, but I think a halfway house option should be perfectly feasible without a referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did try to explain why this isn't realistic, in footnote 1

      Delete
    2. While rejoining without a referendum is politically impossible, is it legally so given that the last referendum was not legally binding?

      Delete
    3. It's no legally impossible, quite irrespective of the 2016 referendum - we joined the EEC without a referendum. But so what?

      Delete
  21. Many thanks for this piece, which makes much sense. Labour's priority has to be to get as decisive an election victory as possible. Only then, and, depending as always on events, can Labour afford itself the luxury of considering what it wants to do with power. My hope is that they will encourage a far more honest political and journalistic culture because as you note it is dishonesty which got us into this mess. But a discussion where people were allowed the platform to make statements such as 'there is no doubt that Brexit has made us poorer but the UK political situation will not currently allow an application for the UK to rejoin the EU', will provoke a different sort of debate, which is, I think, a prerequisite for a more rational discussion.

    The downside danger is of course that Labour inherits such an appalling legacy from the Tories that they rapidly become unpopular and serve only one term. This, I think, is one of the reasons the political game now seems to be as much about the election expected for 2028/29 as it is for the next one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The downside danger is of course that Labour inherits such an appalling legacy from the Tories that they rapidly become unpopular and serve only one term." This is a danger, but with a decisive victory for Labour and a changing voter demographic (see Rob Ford's and growing graduate cohort), the Tories will struggle to make headway.
      Do we really expect the Tories to change into a liberal centrist pragmatic party (rather than a right wing populist party heading in a quasi fascist direction as they are now)? No, me neither.

      Delete
  22. Rejoining should be seen as a process with conditional milestones, not a policy for the endpoint. In my view, the first major milestone would be an authoritative reckoning - an audit of the various impacts, positive and negative, of Brexit to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the vote in 2026. Then base the next stage of policy on those findings. I’d be happy with Labour’s position if they just promised that alongside ‘making Brexit work. And it’s politically defensible - who can argue against knowing more?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good point.

      One of the (many) flaws of the Brexiters was (and still is) that they want everything to be "done" momentarily instead of charting a path towards certain goals.

      It would be a mistake to approach rejoining in a similar fashion.

      Delete
  23. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned electoral reform as a necessary precursor to any moves towards rejoining the EU.
    If it's important for the UK to demonstrate that there is some degree of permanence in its commitment to the EU, then the EU has to be confident that the UK's government cannot again be taken over by an unhinged minority of Eurosceptics. Under FPTP there is no such certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why is it necessary to have a referendum to rejoin the single market? There was never a referendum to leave the single market. I don't understand this line of thinking.

    A referendum to rejoin the EU? Yes fair enough but to leave or rejoin the economic side of EU? We never had a Ref to leave the single market so why would it be necessary to have one to Rejoin it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did try to explain why, in footnote 1

      Delete
    2. Apologies Chris, I completely missed the footnotes this week!

      They're excellent points as well. It's maybe not just as simple as a party commanding a majority in Parliament. There are so many political complexities to consider.

      I guess it's just more evidence (as if any more were needed) that the referendum of 2016 opened a Pandora's box, and we'll be struggling to deal with the consequences for many years to come.

      Delete
  25. Pragmatically I have to accept reluctantly that a referendum is needed to turn back from Brexit, but this does not mean that the subject of a referendum has to be 'rejoin', which the UK is powerless to direct. A referendum can be held on any issue: we could, and I think should, have a referendum to mandate the government to form a closer trading and collaborative relationship with the EU/Europe, the outcome of which would be an important influence on the negotiated outcome.

    Unfortunately, the 2016 referendum changed the parameters, shifting the centre of UK politics in a right wing (albeit incoherently so) direction. Although a comprehensive defeat for the UKIPified Conservatives would help put the lid on the 2016 referendum, a new referendum along the lines I suggest could effectively stop the nonsense. I suggested this a few months ago as a direction of the Lib Dems, but would apply just as well for other anti-Brexit parties. https://liberaldemocratsluxembourg.wordpress.com/2023/02/22/liberal-democrats-should-be-campaigning-now-for-an-anti-brexit-referendum/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris Grey: Have you given much consideration to when and how a referendum could be held (assuming that we agree that there has to be a referendum)?

      I think it is problematic. Proposing a referendum to follow a negotiation ensures a strong disincentive to negotiate, particularly on the EU side. I guess if the UK were accepted for accession a referendum could be held in order to initiate serious negotiations, but the problems have led me to conclude that a referendum is needed to mandate initiatives towards a closer relationship (undefined). The problem is that without a decisive reset, whatever constructive initiatives are likely to be mischaracterised by zealots and the tabloid media.

      Delete
    2. "Proposing a referendum to follow a negotiation ensures a strong disincentive to negotiate, particularly on the EU side. "

      I am not sure that this is true.

      Most, if not all, the members who had a referendum on joining the EU did so after the negotiations had been concluded.

      Delete
  26. There is another reason why concentrating on possibilities within the TCA scope is a better approach than re-heating any of the "Barnier staircase" options.

    For one, these options all got tainted in one way or another, e.g. by claims that they would be Brexit in name only.

    The next few years will bring new, fresh and untainted options, for closer association because these will be needed for the new set of membership candidate nations.

    For many of them, full membership will take at least a decade, probably more.
    Their governments and peoples will need more achievable goals to strive for in the short and medium term in order to sustain the efforts required for the big prize.

    Similar how the EEA was created as a stepping stone for EFTA members but more aligned with capability and diversity of the new batch of candidates.

    One or more of these options could enable Labour to go beyond the improvement possibilities within the TCA context while simultaneously staying committed to promises regarding "no to rejoin".

    Starting official speculation about whether to pursue such options would just risk of them getting tainted before they become even available.

    So it makes sense, for the time being, to continue on the currently chosen "safe" path.
    As frustrating as might be for anyone who can clearly see that it won't be good enough in the long run

    ReplyDelete
  27. In what is otherwise another clear analysis, Prof. Grey trips up in his footnote where he writes "But that is part of a bigger issue: whatever we now do, it surely has to be permanent,". That makes eminent sense but regrettably can't happen given the UK's present unwritten constitution. No parliament can bind its successors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't mind me saying, that's a bit patronizing! Obviously I'm well aware of that, which is why I make the point that just re-joining SM on the basis of having elected a government with that in its manifesto, and no referendum, would be foolish: the next parliament could just as easily undo it. That's why not only a referendum but a durable public consensus and, I think, a super-majority is required. Of course, ultimately, it would still be possible for a future government to enact the reverse of that, and in that sense nothing is literally permanent, but the barriers to doing so legitimately would be all the higher.

      Delete
    2. * Patronising

      Delete
    3. Not sure if that's an attempt to be patronizing or to be pedantic! Either way, it's off-beam, because -ise and -ize are equally correct, at least according to OUP/OED :-)

      Delete
    4. The problem is that the Tory/UKIP/whatever party can just lie about that. Then hold another 'advisory' referendum which will be heldto be binding.

      Delete
  28. I'd venture to suggest that the UK still very early on in the Dunning Kruger Effect graph.
    That is to say the UK had supreme confidence going into the referendum and for a future beyond it, and is starting to realise that something isn't right. There are many stages to go until on the DKE graph before some kind of teachable moment occurs and the UK comes out of the fog/coma it currently dwells in.
    This will require more learning experiences and ultimately some kind of correction in the future.
    The political structure of the UK deliberately impedes any type of self awareness beyond historical cliché, so a kind of perpetual political death spiral is all that is available until such time as 'I know nothing' and 'let's start again' is achieved on the DKE graph.
    I don't doubt that this will happen- it is inevitable that intelligent solutions override unintelligent mistakes.
    Labour have an opportunity to explain this and treat the UK voters like adults, but I dare say that would be overestimating the general intelligence of the UK population again, a mistake that the referendum still reinforces today...
    In my experience in business, owning up to an error and starting the correction immediately is effective and normal. What is happening in the UK regarding Brexit is still in the realms of the abnormal, and gradually approaching the paranormal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't doubt that this will happen- it is inevitable that intelligent solutions override unintelligent mistakes."

      I have heard that in 1900, the per capita GDP of Argentina was about that of the USA. Decades of bad leadership took care of that.

      My money, as a Yank, is for the UK never recovering. The Tories realized that they can trash things and succeed.

      Delete
    2. While your comparison may be valid, as far as comparisons go, to give you another random comparison, when the Brits arrived in India the GDP of India was greater than the whole of Europe combined. When the British finally left, India was in ruins, the country divided, millions dead and impoverished by the Raj, who looted (a word of Hindu origin) everything.
      The Tories have been trashing things for centuries, and comparisons are odious.
      The UK needs to repurpose the famous slogan, "They need us more than we need them" to "We need them more than they need us." It happened in 1976 with the IMF bailout, what goes around, comes around again.
      That's the UK's future teachable moment. Humble pie, us Yanks call it.
      When is anybody's guess- the sooner the better, really.
      I'll take your bet, and I guess we'll see!

      Delete
  29. 1) All part manifestos are portfolios unless they are single-issue parties.
    2) Therefore it makes sense to apply portfolio theory as one of the analysis frameworks. In modern portfolio theory the efficient frontier on the risk-reward spectrum is of considerable interest. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier ). It can be usefully applied in this instance imho.
    3) It seems to me that Labour's position has identified a place along that efficient frontier where they think they can capture maximum seat count for minimum risk, hence their cautious offering. Similar LibDem have done so with their slightly more ample offering in this respect. SNP have their own woes, but are only speaking to a partial electorate in any case. The only other large party is the Cons, but they have yet to fully reveal their position as they are still trying to suss out how to deal with their internal/external frenemies in UKIP-redux, hence not quite being sure whether to run further away from the EU or back towards a closer alignment. This is creating a high risk situation for the Cons, for little reward. That last point is very clear when out canvassing and talking to voters on the doorset.
    =======
    4) I believe you would like to be able to sufficiently identify anonymous comments so as to track evolving conversations. Therefore, unless anybody gets too mischevious;
    - regards, pb

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks, PB, an interesting approach

    ReplyDelete
  31. Only a few years prior to the Brexit referendum, EU membership was quite low on people's concerns. Then, Leave propagandists somehow managed to turn it into a priority. Similarly, rejoining may not be a priority for many now, but that could change just as quickly. Vast numbers of people don't think, they are told what to think. Don't underestimate the power of herd mentality. It's what saddled us with Brexit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course anything is a low priority if there’s no realistic chance of it changing. Then in 2015 there was the migration crisis, the further development of the eurozone crisis, the brutal overriding of Greek democracy etc. There were reasons for a sudden surge of interest in EU affairs.

      Delete
    2. That's true, anon@10.16 but (as I think I've written elsewhere) in the present situation that compounds rather than resolves the problem. Why? Because, precisely as we know opinion could change so quickly, a quick and decisive turn to re-join would not be very persuasive to the EU, as it could just as quickly flip back the other way.

      Delete
    3. The snowball effect of a herd mentality and doubts in the durability of UK attitudes are both true and why I the dial needs to be reset with a broadly worded referendum on finding a closer working relationship with the EU. The long process of working out the process back to the EU would then be able to take place with some confidence on both sides.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymus12:34 - "The brutal overriding of Greek democracy." That sounds like some of the Leave propaganda I was referring to.

      Delete
  32. Just a little reminder that no referendum was needed to pull us out of the Single Market. The referendum we had was on leaving the EU, and several prominent strands of the Leave campaign were adamant that we should stay in the Single Market.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Changes in the structure of the EU, especially with what is happening in Ukraine and the possible expansion of the bloc combined with the ongoing drift in the UK towards closer ties could make the situation look very different possibly as soon as during a Labour first term. It's also slowly dawning on people that the best way to have some control over immigration is as EU members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EU membership does not directly help with immigration control as that is one of the national competencies and handled by each member individually according to their needs.

      However, EU membership greatly reduces the need for immigration.

      If an EU member's economy has vacancies they can more often than not fill those with EU citizens looking for a job.

      Only if that pool is exhausted does the economy have to look to immigration.

      Delete
    2. People coming to the UK from further afield are more likely to want to stay permanently and bring their families. The tories are now trying to stop this almost certainly to the detriment of our care services and NHS. Free movement as part of the EU was more likely to reduce this as people could come and go easily and would not necessarily feel the need to uproot their entire family. Personally I think that overall immigration is a good thing but for those who want to reduce it Brexit was a mistake.

      Delete
  34. As a short comment: the report of the Resolution Foundation (out today) is very Its instructive. The top priority listed by the Resolution Foundation for fixing the problems of the UK economy is this:

    "A services superpower: Britain must build on its strengths as the second biggest services exporter in the world, behind only the US, while protecting the place of its high value manufacturing in European supply chains."

    This begs the question as to why was the UK such a services superpower?
    Precisely because it is ONLY possible for full free trade in services to exist inside a single market and the UK was the services superpower inside the worlds largest SM. The US is a services superpower because the US single market is equal in size to that of the EU.

    Data from the House of Commons Library tells us that in 2019 (pre-covid shutdown and the UK in transition period) 44% of UK goods exports were to other EU members and 39% of the business activity of the UK service sector was in other EU members. The latter was possible because as an EU member all UK companies were 'domestic' under EU law.

    Now post hard Brexit there can be no free trade in services. Given that 80% of UK GDP is from services this was literally a matter of killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

    Then we are told by the Guardian that in his remarks this morning at the conference about the findings of the Resolution Foundation the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said that:
    "Torsten Bell’s summary ignored the context – that Britain was affected by the worst financial crisis since the second world war about 15 years ago."

    Ignoring the elephant in the room = Brexit = no more free trade in services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Within the last week the Economic Affairs committee of the European Parliament has published plans for bringing Euro clearing into the Euro Area. The process will be progressive but will ultimately shut out the City of London. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-committee-backs-law-relocate-euro-clearing-london-bloc-2023-11-28/

      Delete
  35. You need to be carefull for what you wish for. My partner is Spanish (luckily giving me some FoM rights, easy to move there if I want) and was very pro-EU, but is now turning against FoM and the political union. Spain is seen as a playground for rich northern Europeans and the areas they go to get all the EU cash spent on them, the rest largely don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While it is legitimate to register your partner's personal opinions, it simply isn't true that Spain as a country is 'turning against' FoM and the political union. In fact, according to the EU website https://spain.representation.ec.europa.eu/noticias-eventos/noticias-0/eurobarometro-tres-de-cada-cuatro-espanoles-favor-de-que-se-tomen-mas-decisiones-nivel-de-la-ue-2023-03-23_es, confidence is increasing in the Spanish population regarding the EU now running at an all time high of 86% support .
      When you make generalisations like, "Spain is seen as a playground for rich northern...etc" again, this is a gross generalisation without foundation. Yes, there are territorial tensions regarding funding, but this has nothing to do with the EU or foreigners. In fact, the pressures on housing in Madrid are from rich South Americans moving their capital to Spain to escape comparatively unstable regimes. Asturias, a small region in the north, has just been connected to León and Madrid by high speed rain, with more investment in the north to follow, for example.

      Delete
  36. I love when people turn against their own freedoms, it is so sweet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FoM for workers worked and didn't cause problems when the countries were of roughly equal standing.

      Expansion to the east upset the balance and led directly to Brexit.

      Not being able to get a job in your own country and feeling forced to go elsewhere for a job is not "Freedom".

      Delete
    2. At the time of the Brexit referendum there was full employment in the UK. The anxiety around FoM and immigration was totally fabricated by Farage and his scavengers. I don't say there are no issues to address about FoM , but we know people come to work in areas where it is most needed, and when and if there are no jobs available, most people will go back to their countries (we've seen this during the Covid pandemic)

      Delete
    3. 'FoM for workers worked and didn't cause problems when the countries were of roughly equal standing'. That's not true: oportunists and demagogues like Farage existed before him and always complained about people with different accents or different backgrounds. They simply didn't have the social media platforms they have nowadays.

      Delete
    4. EU FOM is actually regulated by individual EU countries through application for residency after 90 days. If one fails to register, one cannot receive eg. health care or education & certainly not benefits. One is still required to have proof of employment or private income. Regards, LN

      Delete
  37. Hi Chris, many thanks for your must read Friday briefings - they are excellent. Have you a take on Larry Eliott's piece in today's Guardian listing the benefits of leaving the EU (Larry Elliott was/is a strong leaver). Cherry picking self selected 'gains' perhaps?
    What is your take on the article?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Immigrants are pouring into Spain and taking the jobs, and forcing up property prices - in reality, in areas where you'd want to actually live, they're not much different to those in the UK.
    Wages, on the other hand, are low.
    The vast majority of people don't want to move country, and saying use FoM to go somewhere else to work is an insult.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Those who struggle to find a job will always blame it onto someone else, not necessarily from abroad, it could be someone from your neighbouring city.

    ReplyDelete
  40. One factor missing in all this is the 2024 US election. If Trump is elected, all bets are off.

    ReplyDelete
  41. And we've seen today again during PMQs the usual mantras against immigration and the EU. What Sunak doesn't explain is how is the country going to face the workforce crisis in the NHS and care sectors, amongst others. It would be nice if Starmer asked these sort of questions instead of agreeing with Tory read meat policies.

    ReplyDelete
  42. *red (correction)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Brilliant post- too many comments for me to take in but I admire your decision to open up for comments. Your next one which I read first on Rwanda and immigration suggests there may be an election rather sooner than later.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Disclaimer: Not a UK citizen.

    The problem with comments saying that Labour can become bolder in a second term is that this argument assumes a second term. As with Labour leadership's own approach, short-term tactics trump long-term strategy. I can see it coming from a mile (five years) away: they will win a large majority, muddle around not improving anything, and then lose the subsequent election as their disappointed voters stay home. If somebody actually wants to get back into the EU, they will at some point have to think strategically and be honest with the voters.

    ReplyDelete