Labour is divided on single market and free movement, writes Ian Dunt
You need powers of clairvoyance to work out Labour’s Brexit policy. There is no consistency of purpose or language, leaving a mess of competing conversations. As things stand, Labour has no voice on the main political issue of the day.
There are at least four camps: The leadership, the shadow Brexit department, the reformers and the abolitionists.
The leadership is made up of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, who have always been critics of the single market. Their branch of the left views its rules on state aid as a barrier to socialism.
Both have restricted their comments on the single market to saying Britain should have ‘access’ – but refrained from calling for membership. ‘Access’ can mean anything really, but suggests something less than membership.
Last month, McDonnell went further and demanded Labour supporters ‘embrace the enormous opportunities’ of Brexit.
There has been some confusion over whether they would try to amend the bill on triggering Article 50. McDonnell promised not to ‘block or delay it’ but Corbyn seemed to U-turn on that this weekend, saying the opposition would put forward an amendment on ‘market access and [workers’] protections’.
This seems like a significant change and indeed Downing Street instantly accused Labour of trying to ‘frustrate the will of the British people’. But in reality both Corbyn’s demands are accepted government policy.
David Davis had already insisted workers’ rights will not be affected by Brexit. And on single market ‘access’, the Labour demand actually falls short of Theresa May’s own aims, which include ‘maximum possible access to the European market’ including a right for firms to ‘operate within’ it.
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer also uses the word ‘access’, but his ‘access’ is not Corbyn’s ‘access’.
Technically speaking, British membership of the single market outside the EU would mean it needs to leave, then join the European Free Trade Association, and then through that join the EEA agreement.
‘Membership will have to lapse,’ he explained to Politico. ‘That’s why I have used the phrase ‘fullest possible access’.’
Starmer is still clearly more lawyer than politician. He is talking in technicalities, not political code. But he does seem to be aiming for the UK to stay in the single market.
The problem with staying in the single market, of course, is that you have to keep freedom of movement. But some believe there may be more wriggle room from Europe on this issue than you’d think.
They might offer an emergency break, ending the requirement for a few years, or maintaining it but with an upper limit – say at 50,000 newcomers a year. Or Europe might be persuaded to restrict free movement to those with a job offer.
Starmer seems to be envisaging this latter option. Speaking to Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics this weekend, Starmer said:
“I personally think we should have a discussion on whether the rule should return to its origin, that being the freedom of movement of workers.”
Outside of the leadership and the shadow Brexit department, there are many malcontent Labour MPs demanding firmer action on free movement. At first sight they seem indistinguishable.
A Fabian pamphlet in September saw Rachel Reeves, Emma Reynolds and Stephen Kinnock attack free movement, with Jonathan Reynolds and Chuka Umunna offering the same message a little later.
But dig deeper and there is a split in this group. To discover it you just need to look at the language. Some of them are talking about ending free movement. Others are talking about reforming it.
Kinnock seems to be in the first camp, although he could probably go either way. ‘The limitless nature of freedom of movement… is not socially and politically sustainable,’ he wrote in the Fabian pamphlet.
Rachel Reeves is even firmer. ‘Immigration controls and ending free movement has to be a red line post-Brexit,’ she wrote in the same pamphlet. Jonathan Reynolds seems to be on the same page, telling the Huffington Post that a ‘tweak’ to the status quo ‘would not wash with people’.
On the face of it, Emma Reynolds sounds identical, but she carefully inserts a caveat. She said: ‘It is my strong view that no future deal can retain free movement of people in its present form,’ [italics added]. She clearly envisages a reform of the type outlined above.
Umunna struck precisely the same note as Emma Reynolds:
“If continuation of the free movement we have is the price of single market membership then clearly we couldn’t remain in the single market, but we are not at that point yet.” [italics added]
What’s interesting about these sneaky little caveats is how closely they resemble the rhetoric from Theresa May just after she became leader.
Whenever discussing the subject May would use the same formulation. Voters did not want ‘free movement to continue in the way that it has done in the past’ [italics added], she would say.
Then, on the first day of the Tory party conference, it changed. Reformist Labour MPs are where May was until October 2nd.
The distinction seems minor, but is actually very significant. Freedom of movement is a condition of single market membership. Some people in Labour want to negotiate with Europe to see if they can reform it and stay in the single market.
Some people have already given up on doing so. The difference is that one group see leaving the single market as a consequence of failure in negotiations, the other as the starting position of those negotiations.
The leadership is having an entirely different conversation altogether – on state aid, not free movement – but that same split applies. They are assuming we’re leaving the single market, rather than fighting to keep us in it.
There is a horrible irony to seeing the right of the party and its hard left leadership agree on an issue for completely arbitrary and unconnected reasons.
This deep difference on the major issue of our times prevents Labour having a coherent position on Brexit. But for the time being they appear happy to accept this, rather than having a battle to settle it.
The sooner they come to a firm position, the sooner they will be relevant again to the national conversation.
Ian Dunt is editor of politics.co.uk and author of ‘Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now?’ Follow him on Twitter @IanDunt
11 Responses to “Can anyone work out Labour’s position on Brexit?”
GodfreyR
Well Corbyn and the leadership team have always held the Bennite position of opposition to the ‘Capitalist Club’ of the EU.
The Blairites have always held very pro-EU views to the point of many of them wanting us to join the Euro.
They are united in their division. I voted for Corbyn in the leadership on both occaisions because of his anti-EU views.
COLIN GORDON
Right now Merkel is drafting tighter German laws for immigration – which don’t appear require an FOM Treaty change.
This guy has been suggesting for a while that there is a collusion in UK politics to pretend this can’t be done : https://brexit853.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/freedom-of-movement-isnt-the-problem-it-is-the-way-the-uk-fails-to-control-it/ I’m told that the experts which must not be listened to think he is right.
Ian Dunt – what is your take on this?
Craig Mackay
Thanks to Colin Gordon! I thought I knew a fair bit about the EU but clearly I did not. These regulations are so far removed from the way that the UK manages its border that it is absolutely astonishing. Surely the Home Office has the power to implement these restrictions immediately and get round most of the complaints about immigration (unemployed benefit scroungers, coming over to use our health service, taking jobs and reducing wages for the natives in the UK). All this compounded with the fact that we do not track EU citizens coming into the UK nor do we track them leaving the UK.
Simply amazing! An extraordinary omission on the part of the Home Office that, had it been correctly implemented and managed, would have stopped all this nonsense in its tracks! So it looks like Theresa May is not only a fairly dreadful Prime Minister but also was seriously negligent when in charge of the Home Office.
Martyn Wood-Bevan
Pathetic article – is there a follow – up one featuring the views of 20 Tories on UKexit (Includes NI as well which is NOT in Britain). Sounds like there is going to be some reduction on immigration in various ways and altering full membership of the Single Market because of it various limitations – not a big deal really.
Roy
All the comments I’ve heard from Labour MPs talk of “political suicide” if the Party takes a stand against Brexit. This focus on purely electoral expediency rather than principles is the thing that is most likely to render the Party irrelevant. Apart from any other consideration, there is no evidence that Labour supporters voted Brexit – even if many Labour-held constituencies did. They are not the same thing. Politically, it looks as if the great majority of leavers were on the right, Tories and kippers in the main. So the Labour Party is starting to look as if it’s frightened of the electorate – never a good place to be in. The LibDems seem to have hit on a rich seam of support for remain. Liberally-minded Labour voters could easily switch to them, as they did in Richmond Park. Labour needs to make its mind up – and fast. Its current stance is unprincipled, untenable and unconvincing and risks leading the Party into a slide into political irrelevance. Listening to the people doesn’t mean giving way to the meaningless rants of “making Britain great again.” It means debating, discussing, arguing, persuading, and standing by your beliefs in a civilised, open, democratic society. The present attempts by the Brexiteers to shut down debate is the antithesis of democracy and needs to be challenged as such. Again, though, this comes down to political leadership, a quality sadly lacking in Labour for the last 6 years. What will be interesting is the result in Sleaford. If the 40% remain voters stick together and the 60% leavers split 3 ways … First past the post may have its uses after all!