Because, rest assured, there will have to be a reallignment with the EU. This will be necessitated not only by the economics but also, most likely, by unfolding events in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
1/19
I am pretty annoyed about Starmer's statement about FoM on the Marr Show today, but I'm still not sure what the thinking behind it is. If it's just that this is not the time to talk about EU allignment, fair enough, but it could have been expressed in a more nuanced way.
Because, rest assured, there will have to be a reallignment with the EU. This will be necessitated not only by the economics but also, most likely, by unfolding events in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I am not convinced that complete endorsement of the Tory's Brexit is required to win back the red wall seats; its not what a careful analysis of polling says and it's, frankly, treating red wall voters as idiots while pandering to their supposed idiocy (pretty patronising).
Given the well-documented harms caused to border trade, UK-based European hub distribution centres, manufacturing (e.g. BASF) and fishing that have emerged just in the first week, it's pretty obvious that THIS Brexit can't be a success.
Indeed, given that these problems have emerged in a period when cross-border trade has been at a minimum we can bet that things are going to get much worse, as the odious Gove has admitted.
This economic puncture will be accompanied by hundreds of stories of the misery caused by small Brexits (e.g. people held up at the Dutch border today, SMEs being unable to export, cost of sending stuff to friends in the EU, pet passports etc.); some we're seeing already.
There will be also other Brexit insults: refusal to join Erasmus (which the defective Turing scheme will not adequately replace) and the troubles experienced by artists wanting to perform abroad - all wounds inflicted in the name of nationalist ideology.
And let's not forget events in the United States. Biden is a strong friend of Ireland; who knows what dirt will be found when his team takes over the White House? Trump and Farage were like evil twins; Trumpism and Brexit are part of the same ubernationalist project.
For all of these reasons and more, it is vital that Labour positions itself so it can hold the Tory government to account for the damage it has caused. Ok, give Brexit as an idea conditional support but certainly not unconditional support for THIS Brexit.
Which takes me to what Europeans should be doing and the attitude they should have to @UKLabour. I left the party under Corbyn and rejoined under Starmer. Right now I'm hold my nerve.
We also know that Labour policy can be influenced by its members and that public opinion can change - very rapidly under some circumstances (hardly anyone wanted to leave the EU in early 2015).
So a plausible way forwards involves a three-prong strategy:
1) I agree with @nicktolhurst that no party can campaign to rejoin right now. Instead we need to identify an intermediate step. It is not difficult to make a strong case for joining EFTA/EEA and/or customs union
2) We need a national nonparty pro-European campaign group which will openly make the case for (1). I see lots of interest in forming such a group, and fragmented groups already existing. How do we come together?
The campaign group should make a big fuss about every loss and f*ck up caused by THIS Brexit and should argue for piecemeal changes to the treaties which ease border problems and allign us more with the EU. This can be done while accepting 'Brexit' (but not THIS Brexit).
The campaign group needs a social media strategy. The far right have shown that Twitter, Facebook etc can be used to drive public opinion. Let's do this (while striving to be ethical). We need something like the US Lincoln Project. This requires funding - from where?
3) Pro-Europeans need to stay in Labour and use our influence to change the party from within. This shouldn't be too hard as more and more Brexit f*ck ups become evident, especially given that most Labour members are already there.
More from Brexit
This very short article by Jeremy Cliffe is the best thing I have ever read on Brexit and the EU. It pivots on the contrast between Delors’ and Thatcher’s authentically provincial Christian visions and suggests the battle in Britain between the two is not over.
Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.
The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!
Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.
Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.
The rupture between Margaret Thatcher and Jacques Delors lives on in Brexit https://t.co/r3YiyPoSFB
— john milbank (@johnmilbank3) January 9, 2021
Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.
The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!
Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.
Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.
A further thread on the EU/UK musicians/visa for paid work issue (the issue is paid work: travelling to sing or play at eg a charity event for free can be done without a visa).
The position that we now have now (no relevant provisions under the TCA) is complicated. For EU musicians visiting the UK see
In essence the UK permits foreign (including EU) nationals to stay up to 30 days to carry out paid engagements, but they must (a) prove they are a professional musician and (b) be invited by an established UK business.
Either condition could be tricky for a young musician starting out and wanting to play gigs. And 30 days isn’t long enough for a part in a show with a run.
Longer stays require a T5 visa - which generally requires you to be in a shortage occupation (play an instrument not played in the UK?) or to have an established international reputation.
Disgraceful and shabby if true: not only ideologically blinkered, but ashamed to admit its ideological blinkers and their consequences. https://t.co/7PgOEogTlA
— George Peretz QC (@GeorgePeretzQC) January 9, 2021
The position that we now have now (no relevant provisions under the TCA) is complicated. For EU musicians visiting the UK see
See here a summary of what is permitted from U.K. POV. https://t.co/HkdRlubySr
— Luke Piper (@Pipermigration) January 10, 2021
In essence the UK permits foreign (including EU) nationals to stay up to 30 days to carry out paid engagements, but they must (a) prove they are a professional musician and (b) be invited by an established UK business.
Either condition could be tricky for a young musician starting out and wanting to play gigs. And 30 days isn’t long enough for a part in a show with a run.
Longer stays require a T5 visa - which generally requires you to be in a shortage occupation (play an instrument not played in the UK?) or to have an established international reputation.
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
