The economic and social grievances that aroused the anger of Leave voters were not caused by the European Union – and will not be remedied by Brexit, writes David Lammy MP
Make no mistake, the passage of the government’s Brexit bill through parliament was difficult for Labour, revealing tensions that have been apparent for some time between most Labour party members on the one hand and the majority of voters in many Labour-held constituencies.
I have heard it said that this tension actually puts Labour in a pretty good position – broadly reflecting the country at large. The truth is that the Tories, who have spent decades fighting about Europe and even brought down their own leaders over it, have somehow managed to remain far more united than we have.
Even if the starting point is a commitment to not frustrating the result of a national referendum – and I do respect that position despite voting against it in parliament – as a party and as the official opposition we have to be absolutely clear about what we are fighting for.
Firm ‘red lines’ on additional funding for our National Health Service; guaranteeing the rights of European Union citizens currently living and working here; commitments to retaining our membership of the single market and customs union and the maintenance of workers’ rights would have served a dual purpose of differentiating our position from this Tory Brexit whilst also uniting members and voters around a distinct Labour position.
The government secured the acquiescence of the House of Commons through compromises and promises which in reality add up to nothing – the most celebrated of which was the publication of a white paper that is merely a vacuous and empty assortment of wishes masquerading as a negotiating strategy.
Brexit minister David Jones attempted to pull the wool over parliament’s eyes by promising a ‘meaningful vote’ at the end of the two year negotiating period. However this vote will be ‘either to accept the deal that the government will have achieved … or for there to be no deal’. In other words, accept whatever we come back with because the alternative will be even worse.
After waving this bill through unamended and with the support of a huge majority, the House of Commons will sit with a loaded gun pressed against its head in March 2019 – faced with a choice between rubber-stamping whatever deal the government manages to cobble together or voting for us to leave the EU with no deal in place whatsoever.
The prime minister has repeatedly said that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, and the Commons rejected amendments that would have sent the government back to reopen negotiations and press for more time. Only a third of voters support a ‘cliff edge’ Brexit, and this is before the disastrous economic reality of falling back on World Trade Organisation rules even begins to register.
A lot is at stake here, but the government are wilfully misleading people about the road ahead, particularly how difficult the forthcoming negotiations will be. It is all well and good to say that we want a smooth, fast Brexit where we keep most of the benefits of EU (like a comprehensive free trade agreement) and ditch the bits we do not like, but reality will bite sooner or later.
The public have not been prepared for the most complex project ever undertaken by our state outside of war, and the prospect of a bad or unsatisfactory deal has not even been countenanced. The Government could at least have been frank about the fact that in a time of fracture and upheaval across the continent the EU will be focused on ensuring that Brexit involves a heavy toll to make sure that other erring nations fall into line.
The government’s white paper fails to even mention the EU’s strategy or priorities – it is almost as if there is only one party to this negotiation and whatever we say goes. Negotiations will not even really get going until after the French, Dutch and German elections later this year and any deal will have to be approved by the various EU institutions, each of the 27 member states’ national legislatures and our own parliament before the end of March 2019 – leaving only around 12 months to strike a deal.
My concern is that in giving the government a blank cheque now, Labour will not share any of the credit for delivering on the ‘will of the people’, but certainly will share in the blame when it goes wrong.
The government cannot meet raised expectations on immigration that were stoked by the Leave campaign without severe economic pain. Let us consider what will happen if we significantly cut migration from Europe. Who will pay for our public services and our huge pension bill? Who will do the jobs that our indigenous population either cannot or will not do in almost every sector from finance to social care?
We need to look at the facts. Even if the government scraps freedom of movement from Europe and implements a draconian border regime they cannot sate the desires of the hard Brexiteers. Over half of all migrants come from outside of the EU, visas will be the quid pro quo of any future trade agreement and businesses will insist on the continued ability to hire from overseas to plug skills gaps.
And what will happen if negotiations do not go smoothly or we are forced into concessions by Europe – for example over budget contributions – in the face of a perfect storm of hard-Brexit backbench Tories and a rabid rightwing press? What will happen when – as night follows day – quitting the single market and customs union delivers a shock to our fragile economy? The playbook is simple and has already been written – blame the ‘Remoaners’, the ‘enemies of the people’, the Brussels Eurocrats and the immigrants.
There is a huge elephant in the room here that the government have failed to come clean with the public about since last June. Europe was never actually responsible for the things that made many Leave voters angry. Brussels and immigrants were made the scapegoat for social and economic problems that were not caused by the EU and certainly will not be solved by an act of national self-immolation on this unprecedented scale.
‘We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure, but anticipating success’. The die is cast, and the juggernaut continues to gather momentum. When it all comes crashing down, perhaps we will look back and wish that we had done differently while we still had the chance.
———————————
David Lammy MP is a former minister. He tweets at @DavidLammy
———————————
Photo
I’m sure many will not agree with your somewhat simplistic analysis Mr Lammey. It’s unfortunately all too easy to suggest that voters anger largely resulted from concerns regarding immigration and the impacts of globalisation. And some of our political class – those of a ‘Remain’ persuasion – now wish, and to some extent it is valid, focus on economic uncertainty. But please don’t overcook it. Is not the use of the term in your title ‘national self-immolation’ just a tad too sensationalised?
Have you perhaps asked yourself though how many of those who voted ‘Leave’ had seen the ‘writing on the wall’, the EU’s declared direction of travel – the ultimate consequences – a ‘United States of Europe’ with ever diminishing national sovereignty and accountability. So is this the real ‘elephant in the room’?
Still to move the discussion on. Will the majority of the current Heads of State of the other 27, the Commission and MEPs accept what is this, a developing concern amongst populations right across Europe? No, they grudgingly accept that there are ‘minor problems’ but their solutions are always couched in the framework of ‘MORE EUROPE’.
Sad, whereas Mrs May is trying to move the agenda on focused around ‘free trade’ together with co-operation & collaboration with our European neighbours too many Europhiles are stuck in a time-warp that dates back to the 1950s. Strategies that lead to the creation of that first supranational body – the European Coal and Steel Community – that has morphed into the EU are, in my opinion, no longer relevant to problems of the 21st century.
“My concern is that in giving the government a blank cheque now, Labour will not share any of the credit for delivering on the ‘will of the people’… ”
That would be because they deserve none.
I wonder Mr Lammy whether you, or readers of this article, have read this analysis – https://www.ceps.eu/publications/regroup-and-reform-ideas-more-responsive-and-effective-european-union ?
Should you perhaps reflect? Its core messages – ‘MORE EUROPE’ – are somewhat similar to that embedded in your article albeit in slightly more words!
As mentioned above, Mr Lammy is continuing with the tiresome meme that all Leavers are anti-immigration, and that they are not in the least interested in the anti-democratic and corporate nature of the European Union.
Were that so – then why people like Tony Benn and Bob Crow?
I also get a little tired of the idea that the EU is some sort of ‘defender of the worker’ – we have seen trades unions taken to the European Court of Justice.
But I accept that people like Mr Lammy do have some justification for voting against Brexit – we live in a representative democracy, and Lammy’s constituency voted to Remain: I would accordingly expect those MPs, who’s constituencies voted to Leave, should represent their views also.
One more thing – also as noted above, in the run-up to the referendum we learnt of the Five Presidents’ Report and and a document from the Spinelli Group, informing us of the EU’s intentions and direction of travel.
These included a more integrated eurozone, with the UK either being absorbed completely or taking up an ‘Associate Member’ status; either we were fully in or we were outside the inner-core in a subordinate position.
I didn’t want the UK being in either position; the best thing to do was leave.
Personally, I would accept a huge dollop of hardship in exchange for my democracy – but I do accept that others may not have the stomach for such a scenario and wish for a lighter landing: I respect Mr Lammy’s views on that position.