The EU flag blows at Reichstag building is on October 01, 2013 in Berlin. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How Labour will work for real change in Europe

We need to boost Europe’s competitiveness, avoid a race to the bottom on skills and wages and ensure EU migrants contribute to our economy and our society.

This week Ed Miliband made clear that a Labour government will be as bold in defending membership of the EU as we are in pushing for real change in Europe. Because being willing to speak up for our place in Europe, does not mean being deaf to the concerns that some people have about our membership.

Securing Britain’s future in Europe means the UK needs to work for change within Europe: setting out how the EU can be made to work better for Britain. That is why Labour has set out a reform agenda focused on boosting Europe’s competitiveness, avoiding a race to the bottom on skills and wages and ensuring people coming to the UK from other EU countries seeking work contribute to our economy and our society.

First, on the economy, our reforms will help deliver a Europe focused on jobs and growth, not more austerity and rising unemployment.  An EU Commissioner for growth, and an independent audit of the impact of any new piece of legislation on growth, would be key to helping re-focusing Europe towards this key task. Ed Miliband also announced that Labour is working with British businesses – through the CBI – to agree a plan for the completion of the Single Market in key sectors like digital and services, helping create new jobs and expand our economy in the years ahead.

Second, we will put in place reforms to help do more to ensure that EU migrants contribute to our economy, and to our society. We will work for greater flexibility on transitional arrangements for new member states, including extending the period of time that people from them have to wait before being able to come to the UK to look for work. But EU migration is not just about who should be able to come to the UK, it is also about what those already here should be entitled to. That is why Ed Miliband announced that we will address the payment of benefits to those not resident in this country, and will look again at the rules on deporting EU citizens who receive a prison sentence for committing a crime after arriving in the UK.

Labour has made clear that we do not think it is right that EU migrants should have access to all UK benefits from day one of entering the country, which is why we have called on the government to double the time that people coming to the UK from other EU countries seeking work have to wait before being able to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. None of us want to see a race to the bottom on wages and skills between EU workers and local workers. That is why we will take action to ensure the minimum wage is properly enforced, close loopholes in rules for agency workers, and look at EU Directives designed to prevent undercutting.

Finally, we recognise that any agenda for change in Europe must also address people’s concerns about how power is exercised at a European level. Labour does not support a drive towards an "ever closer union". EU cooperation is important but so too is the role of the UK Parliament. To uphold this principle, national parliaments must have a greater role in EU decision making, and we should be prepared to work to bring powers back to Britain where EU cooperation hinders rather than advances our interests.

No one is today calling for more powers to be transferred from Britain to Brussels. But given the uncertainty about precisely what a changing Europe and further integration in the eurozone might involve, Ed Miliband has acknowledged that a further transfer of powers remains unlikely, but possible. That is why he announced that a Labour government will legislate for a new lock: there would be no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU without a referendum. This would not just be a referendum to ratify a decision on powers, because as we saw in other countries, referendums of this kind are too easy for governments to ignore. Instead, it would have to be an in/out referendum, with a clear choice for the public to make on our membership of the EU.

After Ed Miliband’s speech this week, it is clear that the dividing line on the EU is not status quo vs change. The choice in 2015 is between a Conservative Party fast unravelling over Europe, and a Labour Party committed to working to make the EU work better for Britain. Ed Miliband leads a Labour Party united on what is best for Britain – and committed to delivering real change in Europe.

Douglas Alexander is the shadow foreign secretary and Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

Getty
Show Hide image

To the Commonwealth, "Global Britain" sounds like nostalgia for something else

And the former colonial subjects have a less rose-tinted view of the past. 

Earlier this month, Boris Johnson became the first British foreign secretary to visit the Gambia since independence. His visit came a few days before the inauguration of the Gambia's new President, Adama Barrow, who has signalled his intention to re-join the Commonwealth - an institution that his dictatorial predecessor had left in protest at its apparent "neo-colonialism".

Accusations of neo-colonialism, regrettably, seem to be of little concern to the foreign secretary. After Johnson committed himself to facilitating the Gambia's Commonwealth re-entry, he declared that "the strength of our partnerships show that Global Britain is growing in influence and activity around the world". 

His comments are the latest example of the government's Brexit mission-creep in its foreign engagements. Theresa May mentioned "Global Britain" no fewer than ten times in her Lancaster House speech last month, reminding us that Britain "has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world" and emphasising the UK's post-referendum desire to "get out into the world". Ministers' repeated subsequent referencing of Global Britain has almost come to the point of re-branding Great Britain itself. But now the government seems to be directly equating Global Britain with the Commonwealth, the organisation comprising most of the former territories of the British Empire. If the Commonwealth is wooing back former members and seemingly growing in stature, that must mean Global Britain is doing the same. The Gambia's proposed re-admission to the Commonwealth is reconfigured as a victory for British clout and prestige in the face of the Brexit naysayers.

But the Commonwealth cannot be a vehicle or front for Global Britain, on either a technical or political level. The Commonwealth emphasises that it is an organisation of 52 equal member states, without any preference in decision-making. India (population 1.26bn) and Tuvalu (10,000) are treated the same. The organisation is headquartered in London, receives the most money from Britain, and its members share elements of history, culture and political systems; but it is not a British organisation and will not take orders from the British government. Commonwealth states, particularly poorer ones, may welcome UK political, financial and developmental support, but will reject the spectre of neo-imperialism. Diplomats remark that their countries did not leave the British Empire only to re-join it through the back door. 

And yet, shorn of influence following the decision to leave the EU, and the single market so instrumental to British jobs and prosperity, the government is desperate to find an alternative source of both power and profit. The members of the Commonwealth, with their links of heritage and administration, have always been touted as the first choice. Leading Brexiter Dan Hannan has long advocated a "union with the other English-speaking democracies", and Liam Fox has been actively pursuing Commonwealth countries for trade deals. But the Commonwealth cannot replace the EU in any respect. While exports to the EU account for just under a half of Britain's total, the Commonwealth receives less than 10 percent of our goods. The decline of UK trade with the Commonwealth was taking place long before Britain joined the EU, and it has in fact revived in recent years while being a member. The notion that Britain is restricted from trading with the Commonwealth on account of its EU membership is demonstrably false.  

The EU, the beloved scapegoat for so many ills, cannot fulfil the role for much longer. Indeed, when it comes to the Commonwealth, 48 of the 52 members have already completed trade deals with the UK, or are in the process of negotiating them, as part of their engagement with the EU. Britain could now be forced to abandon and re-negotiate those agreements, to the great detriment of both itself and the Commonwealth. Brexiters must moreover explain why Germany, with a population just 25 percent larger than ours, exports 133 percent more to India and 250 percent more to South Africa than we do. Even New Zealand, one of Britain's closest allies and a forthcoming trade-deal partner, imports 44 percent more goods and services from Germany, despite enjoying far looser cultural and historical ties with that country. The depth of Britain's traditional bonds with the Commonwealth cannot, in itself, boost the British economy. The empire may fill the imagination, but not a spreadsheet.

The British imperial imagination, however, is the one asset guaranteed to keep growing as Brexit approaches. It is, indeed, one of the root causes of Brexit. Long after the empire fell into history, the British exceptionalism it fostered led us to resent our membership of a European bloc, and resist even limited integration with it. The doctrine of "taking back control" for an "independent Britain" speaks to profound (and unfounded) anxieties about being led by others, when in our minds we should be the ones explicitly leading. The fictional, if enduringly potent victim narrative that we became a colony of someone else's empire, has now taken hold in government. The loss of our own empire remains an unacknowledged national trauma, which we both grieve and fail to accept. The concept of being equal partners with like-minded countries, in a position to exert real, horizontal influence through dialogue, cooperation and shared membership of institutions, is deemed an offence to Britain's history and imperial birthright.

The relentless push for Global Britain is thus both a symptom and cause of our immense global predicament. Through an attempt to increase our power beyond Europe, Brexit has instead deflated it. Britain has, in truth, always been global, and the globe has not always been grateful for it; but now the government preaches internationalism while erecting trade barriers and curbing migration. After empire, Britain found a new role in Europe, but with that now gone, Global Britain risks producing global isolation. Despite the foreign secretary's rhetoric, the Commonwealth, geopolitically and economically, has moved on from its imperial past. It is not waiting to be re-taken.

Jonathan Lis is the deputy director at British Influence.