Labour has long had problems with the idea of Europe. A statement by the party’s National Executive Committee in 1950 worried that European Union would act as a brake on socialist policies and that a customs union would cause “serious dislocation, unemployment and loss of production.” Its sister social democratic parties got on regardless with the task of constructing the early institutions of European integration.
Labour’s mistrust of the EU had historic consequences. Jeremy Corbyn’s feeble campaigning in the referendum campaign, coupled with his incomprehension of the issues at stake, ensured that many Labour voters were unaware of the party’s support for Remain. A year since the Brexit vote, it would be a euphemism to say Labour’s stance is in flux. No one knows what it is. While the Tories embark on tearing down Britain’s trading relationships and diplomatic alliances, Labour stumbles along behind crying: “Yes! But perhaps not so loud, please…”
A credible European stance would have a set of aims and acknowledged trade-offs. The policies announced by Keir Starmer, Labour’s Brexit spokesperson, in the general election campaign made no sense at all, being essentially a series of bromides about wanting good things from Europe but not being prepared to pay for them. “We do not believe,” said Starmer “that leaving the EU means severing our ties with Europe. We do not believe that Brexit means weakening workers’ rights and environmental protections or slashing corporate tax rates.”
Brexit means all of those things, and more. According to Starmer, Labour won’t make immigration control the centrepiece of its Brexit plan, but opposes freedom of movement. He thereby contradicted Corbyn’s own stated position on freedom of movement, at least supposing (as they sometimes don’t) that Corbyn’s views on one day match those he holds on another. Labour wants an agreement with the EU but isn’t clear what should be in it. Pressed on what would happen if the EU declined to reopen a negotiation rejected by parliament, Starmer was unequivocal: “We have to cross each bridge when we get to it.”
"A rational Labour Party would realise that collective goals like environmental protection and workers’ rights are enhanced by Europe"This is risible but typical. Labour’s Brexit policy is in the hands of an unreflective and overpromoted man who is his party’s own Iain Duncan Smith: not the quiet man, but the silent knight. Meanwhile, no one knows what the party believes on the single market or customs union. A group of Labour MPs, including Chuka Umunna and Meg Hillier (my own MP, who I supported in the general election campaign because of her pro-Europeanism), press for continued membership of the single market. Others, like John McDonnell and Caroline Flint, insist—in common with Theresa May, and despite the fact that no such question appeared on the ballot paper—that leaving the political institutions of the EU requires leaving the single market too.
Labour has historically done important and noble things in social reform and foreign policy. Nothing more betrays its electorate, especially the 18-24 year olds who voted Labour last month in unexpected numbers, than its pusillanimity and nativism on Europe. The referendum was not a landslide for Brexit and the government has chosen to pursue the most destructive and illiberal variant possible. All that Labour, most of whose voters backed Remain, can say is “us too,” but varying its volume in different parts of the country and to different segments of the electorate.
It won’t do and it compounds the disaster that Corbyn caused in 2016 when proving incapable of constructing a decent pro-European case. Both main parties ought to see their values crystallised in European integration. A rational Labour Party would realise that collective goals like environmental protection and workers’ rights are enhanced by Europe. A rational Conservative Party would welcome the EU’s stand on competition policy and state aid. Both parties would acknowledge the service to consumers done by the EU in taking firm action against Google for abusing its market dominance. Both would accept that the spread of the EU’s influence has helped pacify apparently intractable conflicts in Ireland, the Balkans and Cyprus.
But these are strange times, and none more so than on the left. A progressive party should be pressing for more Europe, not less; better regulation, not least in safety standards and financial services; and more immigration, to fill gaps in the labour market and provide the revenues on which social services depend. Brexit does nothing to address Britain’s structural economic weaknesses. Its effect on flows of trade, investment and people will constrain growth.
There is no way of making Brexit work, but only better or worse ways of containing the damage. Labour should be addressing that by insisting that Britain remain part of the single market and customs union, and not giving up the fight. Instead, as new research shows that a third of non-British workers are considering leaving the country, Labour stands on the quayside fancifully imagining there’s a bright side.
