5th July 2022
We have a new national pastime in the United Kingdom, to complement complaining about the weather.
That pastime is pretending that the United Kingdom should not rejoin the Single Market of the European Union, even though it is obvious that we should rejoin.
The completion of the Single Market, of course, was in its execution something which owed greatly to the British Conservative politicians of the day, notably Lord Cockfield and Margaret Thatcher.
An array of practical proposals were promoted by the United Kingdom to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services throughout the (then) European Economic Community.
The contribution to the completion of the Single Market is something about which that the United Kingdom generally can rightly feel proud.
But we now have to pretend we do not want to be members of it.
You will recall a sensible outburst from a current government-supporting MP Tobias Ellwood and the response to it from the very chair of the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Tugendhat:
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1532445501563469824
This blog covered that exchange here.
Tugendhat is an ambitious politician – and so one explanation for him to not openly admitting Ellwood was right is that it would frustrate his political ambitions.
But.
It is not just Tugendhat.
Here is another ambitious politician, Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition:
Starmer contends:
“Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”
Here Starmer avoids mentioning Peppa Pig, but we get the following imagery instead:
“The second step we would take is to tear down unnecessary barriers. Outside of the single market and a customs union, we will not be able to deliver complete frictionless trade with the EU. But there are things we can do to make trade easier.
“Labour would extend that new veterinary agreement to cover all the UK, seeking to build on agreements and mechanisms already in place between the EU and other countries – benefiting our exporters at a stroke.
“There was a story on the news the other day about a ‘wet wipe island’ that has formed in the Thames. Made of fat and oil and household rubbish one metre deep and the size of two tennis courts, it is blocking the flow of the river and changing the shape of the riverbed.
“You couldn’t imagine a better metaphor for the Tory Brexit deal. They have created a hulking ‘fatberg’ of red tape and bureaucracy. One that is hampering the flow of British business. We will break that barrier down, unclog the arteries of our economy and allow trade to flourish once more.”
Fine words.
Yet describing a “hulking ‘fatberg’ of red tape and bureaucracy” is one thing, actually unclogging it another.
Starmer – like Theresa May before him – seems to think that a pick-and-mix approach will somehow work – with the European Union happily agreeing to discrete things that will perfectly suit the United Kingdom.
Perhaps that will work, but it is unlikely to do so.
The political truth is that from Northern Ireland to professional qualifications and veterinary services, there is a glaring solution to the problems.
Membership of the Single Market.
Tugendaht’s excuse is about the United Kingdom not wanting to be a rule-taker.
But.
We are a rule-taker – and one with added bureaucracy, just for us.
Of course, the European Union may not quickly allow the United Kingdom to again be part of the Single Market.
Would you, if you were the European Union?
Why would you chance having to deal with more of the United Kingdom’s psychodrama and collective political breakdown since 2016?
So, yes – membership of the Single Market may be currently unrealistic and unlikely.
Yet that is not an excuse for this continued pretence that it would not be in our interests.
The 2016 referendum question was silent on membership of the Single Market – and there are several European countries that are part of the Single Market and not members of the European Union.
It was only because of Theresa May’s extreme interpretation of the referendum result that the United Kingdom left the European Union on the terms that it did.
And so we all now have to pretend that membership of the very Single Market that the United Kingdom shaped and crafted is somehow a Bad Thing.
It is a silly position to be in.
And as this blog has previously averred, we will only “move on” from Brexit when we can have a mature discussion about the merits of sharing a Single Market with the regulatory super-power with its hundreds of millions of customers next door.
**
Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.
For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
It seems the Conservative and Labour Parties have to pretend membership of the Single Market is a bad idea.
The rest of us are perfectly free to think something different. For example, here is the Liberal Democrat position: https://www.libdems.org.uk/rebuilding-trade-and-cooperation-with-europe
Tugendhat’s tweet makes no sense. Foreign laws are always involved in trade with other countries. Not having an agreement doesn’t mean you get to trade with them purely on your own terms! Staying out of a multiparty agreement just means the terms you receive will always be worse than the terms parties to the agreement receive. Why? Because otherwise the parties to the agreement would leave it to get the terms you got! The multi-party players will always preserve an advantage for themselves to maintain the agreement.
Yes, but. The UK’s relationship with the EU has to be mended with sane negotiations and actions in the current treaty context before we propose rejoining anything. That is going to take years, I am afraid. In the context of the world as it then is, providing that the EU, its key members and UK have sensible relationships, then we can move again. But, re-entry to the SM must be seriously well sold to the electorate. And the hard leavers will remain influential in all parties, whatever the short term opinion polls say.
So I think Starmer is correct. Maybe he is over-emphasising his view to avoid confusion, but we need a calm and mature period between now and any discussion about reversing Brexit.
I think you are not being fair to Keir Starmer here.
You quote him as saying “Outside of the single market and a customs union, we will not be able to deliver complete frictionless trade with the EU”
Yes it seems weak that he is not arguing to rejoin the single market but he is also recognising that this will not be practical for a long time. Neither the UK electorate nor our counrerparties in Europe will countenance it.
Meanwhile we are where we are and must do what we can to make the best of a bad job. Emily Thornberry expressed this well on TV this morning.
Starmr’s position is ““So let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/starmer-ends-labour-silence-on-brexit-as-he-rules-out-rejoining-single-market
This is a statement that it is not even worth making the argument, indeed we should not a that argument. The article above says that to do so would jeopardise people’s faith in politics. The implication is that are not even allowed to try to hold Leavers to account for their recommendation when it is apparently to almost everyone that Brexit is not working out very well for all sorts of reasons.
In the meantime:
• Something like 80% of the UK economy is in the service sector — our economy is arguably more dependent on services than any other advanced nation
• The UK last ran a trade surplus in goods in the same year as the Falklands War
• Embedded services (so-called Mode 5) are increasingly critical even to trade in specialised high-value goods
• In our recent history, the majority of exports of services have been achieved not by large conglomerate with dedicated legal departments but by SMEs
• Most of those exports went to the EU
• Those SMEs are currently bleeding out and failing under the burden of entirely predictable and predicted restrictions *where it is even possible to continue to service EU clients*; in addition, UK staff are being replaced by those with EU passports, as they no longer have the right to work where the services are required. The skills and experience of British workers have been dramatically devalued.
• The EU Single Internal Market is, by a country light-year, the largest, richest, and most integrated international market for services on the entire planet
• … in fact, aside from arrangements between Australia and New Zealand (who also have effective mutual Freedom of Movement) most trade experts would describe the EU as the *only* significant international market in services: free trade in services is a highly complex thing to address, as they can interact strongly with so many other issues, and trade agreements almost never carry more than warm words and aspirations in their respect
• Geography is unavoidable: in spite of much nonsense to the contrary, there are many services which it is simply not practicable to supply on a wide-ranging global basis, particularly for SMEs
• The damage has already been catastrophic; but with every extra month or year that passes more contracts terminate or are lost, and more long-term relationships fail and fade.
• Brexitists insist that the world beyond the EU is growing faster, but this is because the overwhelming majority of the world is far poorer and it is obviously easy to grow fast from a lower base
• The UK is a country with high land prices and thus a high cost of living: unsurprisingly, nobody can explain how it can be possible to make a healthy living selling services to countries with GDPs per capita far less than you own! Just what do you sell when your viable daily rate approaches the monthly or even annual salary of your prospective clients?
These are just a few of the basic facts, but they are the fundamental parameters that any plan for the UK’s prosperity must address.
Had we not just left the EU Single Internal Market, then how to join or gain access to it would be the dominant debate in any political discussion of business forum!
Powerful points and I share your sentiments. As you say, had we not just left the single market we would no doubt be considering how to join or gain aceess to it. But we are where we are – we *have* just left it. What would you do in the real world that would be acceptable to the electorate?
I worked for a 14 man company that provided international services. After a decade we’d experienced one debilitating stroke, and one death on return flight out of Egypt. I am pretty sure the cause was excessive time spent sat in coach class on flights lasting 10-14 hrs. We all got the message early on and drifted off to other things. The notion of services provided by Global Britain might have worked when you traveled on the Mayflower but not today. Politicians clearly don’t have a clue what life is like for those of us who routinely have to get off a long-haul flight and running large complex meetings – it’s exhausting and unsustainable without severe health effects.
I worked for several companies providing international services and we had no such problems. I can see the problem with short business visits on long haul but our foreign trips were usually lengthy, plenty of time to recover. Normal precautions against ill health and death sufficed. I don’t recall a single travel related employee death (other than one fatal air crash years before my career started). A few people suffered DVT but they were always grounded until fully recovered.
While I’m not in favour of attempting to make Global Britain replace EU membership, I don’t agree that the issue of long haul flight health is a serious reason why not.
It may be a silly position. However universal suffrage does not come with an obligation to prefer the sensible over the silly.
You are quite right. And in particular that we are going to be largely a rule-taker whether we’re in the SM or not. But what, in my view, needs to happen to get the SM option back into the realm of the politically feasible is a proper explanation and defence of freedom of movement by leading politicians. Pointing out that it’s a two-way street. And the benefits of immigration – bringing in more taxation than is incurred in public services, enabling businesses to fill jobs etc etc. So long as freedom of movement is treated as a bad thing we are never going to make progress
I think a key point to make is that freedom of movement of people is not immigration.
This should be pretty obvious to anyone once you start considering that the UK is a union which had freedom of movement of people between its members for centuries.
Nobody would consider a Scottish student in London to be an immigrant.
Or an English pensioner who retired to Wales.
Let’s face it – Brexiters thought Brexit would result in less immigration. What they got was fewer Europeans and more Africans and Arabs. Read the Migration Advisory Committee report if you want to see what that will mean in the long run.
“Starmer – like Theresa May before him – seems to think that a pick-and-mix approach will somehow work – with the European Union happily agreeing to discrete things that will perfectly suit the United Kingdom.
Perhaps that will work, but it is unlikely to do so.”
Switzerland negotiated two rounds of bilateral agreements that are effectively a pick and mix. Unlike what can sometimes be read in British media, Switzerland is not in the Single Market, far less the Customs Union, the latter of which has only been open (so far) ti EU members. It has a bespoke settlement, for which it pats a high price- a price most of its citizens and businesses consider worth paying.
There’s a hitch, however. It took Switzerland many years to negotiate these deals with the EU, then get them ratified. Even without the necessary referendums in the UK, a pick and mix bilateral settlement with the EU would take a long time – possibly as long as two Parliaments. Our political situation is too volatile for that. Truth be told, it’s too volatile for a SM negotiation at the moment- assuming the EU is even interested. Our reputation as an honest counterpart is now non-existent.
“Truth be told, it’s too volatile for a SM negotiation at the moment- assuming the EU is even interested. Our reputation as an honest counterpart is now non-existent.”
I believe you are quite correct. And I would add something else: the UK having now become a lackey of the US, whilst the EU is endevouring to establish herself as the reliable western power on different political bases from warmongering US and UK, makes us Europeans even less interested in entertaing any kind of negotiation with the UK. And remember that the NI protocol farse is still on the table.
I’m afraid that the option of a Swiss EFTA based arrangement of hundreds of bilateral sectoral deals with the EU giving them 95+% of the benefits of SM membership as enjoyed full EU or EEA members is not available to the UK.
In fact it’s not even available to the Swiss anymore as the EU has told the Swiss that it has to move to a Norway style EEA deal.
The reason is that those hundreds of sectoral treaties needed constant updating everytime EU law and regs changed (almost weekly) and this means a state of constant bilateral negotiations with Switzerland and inside Switzerland constant political fights & referendums & lots of hold ups.
It was also a massively expensive exercise for both sides especially the Swiss with the Federal government having a whole ministry dedicated to managing the EU deals.
So some time ago the EU called time and in fact has negotiated a complete EEA deal with Switzerland which opinion polls in Switzerland show will pass a federal referendum with >75% support but right now everything is held up at the level of the Swiss National Council (lower House of Federal Assembly) where a right wing Eurosceptic party the SVP along with a few single seat left wing Eurosceptics refuse to allow debate and passage of the needed referendum.
Even though between them they command around 60 of 200 seats they can do this because all decisions have to be made on consensus and not by a simple majority vote.
So there is a stalemate and month by month Swiss law and regs is diverging from the EU as it is no longer being updated and Swiss business is furious. Eventually once real economic damage is done and enough firms relocated part of their business to the EU the pressure will force the referendum to happen and Switzerland will join the EEA with Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein.
Michel Barnier was clear that a (now former) Swiss type relationship was not available to the UK.
It’s also worth noting that membership of the EEA in a ‘Norway’ type deal is not a given as it depends on the other EEA members agreeing and they are very wary. As a Norwegian pol put it “we don’t want to get into an abusive relationship”.
Hi David, first of all thanks for the post, as an avid politics twonk and (soon-to-be) solicitor in training, I love what you do with your blog!
I have heard the argument made, albeit on Twitter, that Kier’s move here is a sensible one on the basis that a more ‘cooperative’ British government must show goodwill and a commitment to engaging with the EU before we could consider any kind of rejoining of the CM and CU. I understand that entry of Britain into the CM and/or CU would require unanimous approval by the 27 members, and so perhaps it’s necessary to walk before we can run. Will the EU welcome us back with open arms right now? Should there be no repercussions for those that attempt to go it alone?
I do, however agree with your point that the problem Kier faces is that his policy is still based on a lot of the fallacies around the EU that led to the referendum result in 2016.
Perhaps Kier could learn a thing or two from the Mike Lynch School of Swift and Blunt Dismissal of Untruths, but I imagine he feels trapped in a world of European Union delusion and all his advisers are warning him about alienating the third of Labour voters that wanted to leave.
Does the British public even have an appetite for a rational, fact based discussion about the intricacies of European integration? I’m not sure it was facts or experts that influenced the 2016 decision and I’m not sure the country has suffered enough to recognise that emotional arguments made in the Brexit referendum may have omitted certain facts and realities.
I never understood the idea of “our” rules. If you wish to sell something in another country, you obviously need to abide by their rules. If you don’t think cars don’t need airbags, you won’t sell one car in any country that requires them as if the UK sells that many cars abroad.
As I understand it mutual recognition of qualifications is only available to member states and not third countries. It is an ongoing process not a completed exercise. Does the commission have the authority to negotiate mutual recognition with a third country? If not, a new treaty would be needed. That would put the UK in the position that Ireland would have to hold a referendum on treaty change to do the UK a favour. In current circumstances that looks unlikely.
The Brexiters complaints about rule taking are utter nonsense. All exporters to the EU have to comply with EU rules, Brexit or no Brexit. So we’re rule takers whatever we do. The issue is the high cost of trading with the EU due to the bureaucracy necessary to prove you comply with EU standards. The only way to solve that is to rejoin the single market and customs union. This would remove most of the downsides of Brexit.
Agree, but how are you going to sell that to the British voter and 27 EU governments?
I think the EU would welcome a positive relationship with a less confrontational UK government. They will benefit from the increased trade while still not having to deal with the UK as a member nation. The difficulty would be rejoining the EEA. EFTA might not be keen on the UK rejoining.
As for the electorate, polls show a clear majority think brexit isn’t working so fixing the trade relationship would be an easy case to argue. Similarly a positive view of free movement should be presented. It would help with labour shortages in the UK and the benefits of it for UK citizens, never ever mentioned during brexit referendum and subsequent debates, should be vigourously promoted.
The fixed mindset on brexit must be broken. We must move on.
Complete agreement from me.
In the interest of clarity and accuracy in this debate it really needs to be made clear that a single market (SM) and a customs union (CU) are different beasts.
All members of a single market are legally ‘domestic’ in the geographic area of the SM and as such under a single overarching law & courts. SM’s exist in the truly federal nations like the USA, Canada or Australia and uniquely in the EU where sovereign nations have pooled a degree of sovereignty in specific designated competencies relating to trade and employment to form a SM. EU law and the ECJ is overwhelming about trade & employment law.
Indeed the degree of freedom of trade in both goods and services in the EU SM is a lot higher than in the SM’s of the USA, Canada or Australia in which member states are highly protectionist of local monopolies.
So my point is that no nation can be a member of the EU SM without being a member of either the EU or of the EEA (Norway, Lichtenstein, Iceland) and as such under all EU law mediated via the ECJ for EU members or EU law relevant to certain sectors (around 80%) mediated via the EFTA Court for EEA members.
For both groups they must follow the 4 freedoms (includes FOM) and pay dues (less for the EEA).
I’ve seen a number of commentators (including Labour Party officials) say that since EU or EEA membership is too toxic a topic in England (85% of UK pop) then there needs to be a step wise process of rebuilding and repairing trade links with the EU by first fixing the TCA by signing the many needed sectoral mutual equivalence agreements (MEA’s) to overcome the many non tariff barriers (NTB’s) in modern trade – such as a SPS deal. This is sensible and doable quickly.
However these commentators then say the UK must join the EU SM next but not be a member. That’s impossible. In fact it’s the have cake and eat it approach of Brexiters in the first place. Membership benefits but no responsibilities.
I’ve never understood the argument to be a member of the single market, which really means joining the EEA, but not a full member of the political union. In doing so you need to accept almost all of the rules and obligations but with a much more limited say in agreeing what the rules are. Can anyone point out significant rules that don’t apply to EEA members but do apply to full EU members? Genuinely curious.
One of the arguments made in favour of Brexit was the democratic deficit in how the EU functions. I seem to be a rare Remainer who at least partially agrees with that argument. There is an issue with how the EU works that makes it far too removed from the voters. That was the power of the argument over Turkey joining during the referendum. Not that it was ever likely to happen, but if it did it would be agreed at the Council of the EU and rubber stamped by EU Parliament. Voters would not get an opportunity to object and stop it. Joining the SM/EEA would be far worse in terms of democratic accountability.
“Not that it was ever likely to happen, but if it did it would be agreed at the Council of the EU and rubber stamped by EU Parliament.”
The UK had a veto over that in the EU Council, and would not even have had to use it as France will veto Turkish accession until full recognition of the Armenian genocide — not happening any time soon, certainly not under Erdogan.
But the EU Council includes the leaders of all Member States: are you saying really that you can’t accept as democratic any decision, even one with the consent of both the elected leader of your country and your constituency MEP unless you *personally* are consulted?
“In doing so you need to accept almost all of the rules and obligations but with a much more limited say in agreeing what the rules are.”
Yes, that was perfectly clear before the referendum; but the Brexitists were perfectly happy to tout even the “Norway Option” as “Taking Back control.” Perhaps that should have offered a clue as to the qualities and candidness of those involved.
Norway does not (automatically) follow all EU rules on fisheries and agriculture (for example): ironically, a significant part of their fishing industry wishes they did, especially as a substantial amount of Norwegian-caught fish is landed and processed in Germany and Poland precisely in order to avoid import tariffs and bureaucracy (but the jobs are not in Norway!). The same will likely become the norm for substantial quantities of British-caught fish — businesses in places like Grimsby and Bridlington have already been closing…
Good piece. One can only speculate that Starmer knows the truth but calculates he can only win GE by pretending we must accept Brexit.
But it won’t go away. The TCA has a review clause (Art finprov.3) providing for review negotiations *every 5 years*.
An optimistic take on what he said is that is that if the trend to divergence can be halted in 2025/6, we can begin serious talks about our status in 2030. The danger however is to pretend that the EU will agree to make whatever minor changes suit the UK without insisting on wider discussions. Starmer has to be ready to tell the electorate that to get what the UK wants it will have to be ready to commit to things the EU seeks. Some concessions on sovereignty will actually be good for our economy. Aligning our ETS scheme with the EU’s will avoid Carbon Border Adjustments. And we need to recognise that our already agreed continuing membership of European standards bodies gives us influence.
My take on this is here
https://progressiveeconomyforum.com/publications/reviewing-the-tca-how-to-salvage-something-from-the-wreckage-of-brexit/
It’s a long road back, but Starmer’s choice of starting point was disappointing. This hardest of hard Brexits was not inevitable, and there’s a growing move in public sentiment away from it as its effects hit home. Starmer could have chosen to lead and encourage that move (and things are only going to get worse), but decided to bake it in.
Matthew Holehouse of the Economist: “Starmer’s speech is total victory for Vote Leave: a cross-party consensus that the Johnson deal is the new and immovable constitutional reality within which all future EU relations must exist”.
“Starmer’s speech is total victory for Vote Leave: a cross-party consensus that the Johnson deal is the new and immovable constitutional reality within which all future EU relations must exist”.
Yet ironically Johnson seems to be insisting that the Johnson deal needs to be dismantled by Johnson!
Starmer has surrendered the terms of the debate: a better statement might be “Starmer’s speech is total victory for Vote Leave: only Leavers can discuss the terms of Britain’s relationship with the EU.”
The Conservatives want the next election to be a rerun of the last one. They want to paint Labour as opposing the democratic outcome of the referendum. They already have evidence that Keir Starmer advocated a second referendum, even if he has changed his mind. He has to distance himself from that position.
You correctly make the argument that we didn’t vote to leave the single market. However, the Remain campaign clearly said we would leave the single market if we left the EU, and key figures in the Leave campaign also said it in the second half of the campaign.
The issue of freedom of movement of people is a further area of political difficulty. We may have a shortage of immigration at the moment, but that might not be true in the future. Supporting the single market would necessitate explaining why uncontrolled EU immigration is worth it. Labour is not ready for this to be an election argument.
We have some evidence of the costs of leaving the single market. But it is early evidence: convincing enough for people who were already of that mind. But with enough points that can be disputed by those who don’t agree, and water that can be muddied. Later on, better evidence will have been collected, and more people will be convinced. It’s the wrong time to be fighting this battle.
When Scotland gains independence we will be rejoining the EU. We already conform to nearly all the rules and regulations, being a recent member, and it will be a great advantage to the country. In the meantime the UK should be considering the single market and customs union. Unfortunately this would negate the current government’s ambition to continue the fight with EU and its perceived electoral advantage.
I think our new national pastime is listening to the pronouncements of government ministers or spokespeople, parroting an official “line to take”, and trying to discern whether they are saying something that is arguably true on a close reading of the specific words but grossly misleading when taken as a whole, or that is just plain false.
It’s certainly a silly position to be in, on the judgement of those engaged enough to read blogs such as yours. But I think Starmer may have a point. He has to be elected above all else.
Not sure about your attribution of the hardest Brexit only to Theresa May. The ERG and DUP held the cards, and the direction of travel was strongly towards the rupture we have now. The hardcore are not even satisfied with the thin relationship we have now, if Johnson’s NIPB is anything to go by. If it hadn’t been May, then it would have just taken a little longer.
I don’t agree with your take on this, I think Starmer is only too aware of the benefits of rejoining the Single Market but he has to get Labour elected first.
Then I think we will see a steady healing of the fractures between the UK and the EU
After all he won’t be the first politician to change his mind!!!
“Rule taker” is just a populist catch-phrase. In practical terms it simply means meeting the requirements of someone buying your goods or services, nothing more.
The Single Market is owned controlled and regulated by the EU. You cannot simply flit in and out of it or use bits of it which may be to your liking whenever it suits .
Six years after you voted to leave the EU with no future business plan ( viable or otherwise) on the table debating at this level is not very enlightening.
To move forward be honest enough to admit
1. You do not like foreigners
2 Sovereignty at home does not mean you can impose your views on others.
3. Expect lower future economic growth when compared with the EU. Historically just look at what happened 1953 to 1973.
There is acceptance within the EU that you have left. The main issue there today is war in Ukraine and EU reform and membership for 7 or 8 other countries who want to join.
Freedom of movement for the UK is hardly a priority.
Actually, Freedom of Movement for the UK is a priority.
We have 1.3 million unfilled vacancies in the UK.
A UK record.
And our new (im)migration policy, designed to meet our labour market needs has resulted in less (im)migration from the EU countries, but more (im)migration from non EU countries.
In fact, we have record levels of immigration now.
And all that since Freedom of Movement ended.
Whether or not the EU needs the labour and skills of UK citizens, we desperately need the labour and skills of EU citizens.
“You say that these numbers mean dial it down. I say they mean dial it up. You haven’t gotten through. There are people you haven’t persuaded yet. These numbers mean dial it
up.
Otherwise you’re like the French radical watching the crowd run by and saying “There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” ”
There’s always a West Wing scene …
Sir Keir Starmer QC appears addicted to taking down dictation from his focus groups.
Perhaps we should not be too hard on him. He has only been an Member of Parliament for just over seven years.
And Sir Keir Starmer QC freely admits he does not understand much, if anything at all about trade, industry and economics so he leaves all that to Rachel Reeves.
He just reads out what he is given to say.
However, he might have noticed by now that his CBI Conference speech of last November, which went down like a cup of cold sick then and which he regurgitated on Monday has not attracted any significant support from business or the trade unions.
It would be deliciously embarrassing for Labour, desperately distancing itself from the trade unions if Mick Lynch of the RMT which campaigned for Lexit in 2016 now comes out publicly in fulsome support of Starmer’s policy.
Keir Starmer needs to persuade former Labour voters in the Midlands and North it is safe to come home.
You’re an avowed Brexiteer, and most likely a STEM educated engineer of some description. You are not the target audience for the speech.
It is a clear attempt to close down one of the Tories main attack strategies in the next election.
Next Starmer will say that he will not give the Scots Nats an independence referendum.
The real challenge for the Tories will be to identify the benefits we will be able to obtain without moving back into greater EU alignment.
It is likely that these will be unpopular. I expect Labour and the LDs to target the rural and farming vote, where the Conservatives have a real problem at the moment.