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
A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.
The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.
Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.
It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.
In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.
But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.
The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.
Brexit reality bites: The new dawn of trade friction via @RTENews https://t.co/p6VdlhZUAN
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) January 9, 2021
Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.
It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.
In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.
But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.
