Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

There’s still time for Labour to make the case for staying in the single market

But both time and patience are running short. 

Quick question: What do a majority of the public and a majority of MPs from across the House of Commons have in common when it comes to Brexit? The answer: a firm belief that we can leave the EU but stay in the single market. So why is it that the current position of both the Labour and Conservative party leaderships is to wrench us out of it, regardless of the consequences?

We know that Theresa May has been backed into a corner by the right wing of her party. This weekend, Jacob Rees Mogg led the charge to pull Britain out of the single market in March 2019, with 100 Conservative MPs backing his call for the hardest of Hard Brexits – a number impressive enough for a splash in a Sunday newspaper, but not nearly enough to command a majority of Conservative MPs, let alone a majority in the House of Commons.

A new poll of MPs found a majority are on the same page: 56 per cent of MPs across all parties feel that remaining in the single market is compatible with the result of the Brexit vote. For Labour MPs, 90 per cent feel this way. It’s pretty easy to see why: leaving in the EU clearly does not require leaving the single market. Just look at the examples of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein: all three are in the single market, but none of them are EU members.

The leadership of my party is now out of step with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its supporters, the overwhelming majority of its own MPs, as well as the majority of MPs across the House of Commons as a whole.

Some have argued that Labour wouldn’t be able to fulfil the economic promises made in the 2017 manifesto outside of the single market: this is nonsense. Multiple studies have shown that every single one of the economic policies we put forward as a party in the general election, many of which proved extremely popular, would be perfectly possible within the rules of the single market. Even shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has reportedly agreed with this.

It’s time to wake up to the fact that being part of the single market is the best insurance policy we could have against a race to the bottom on wages, rights and protections that threaten British workers and that there is no “jobs first Brexit” without it.

Until the position of the leadership changes, we will be letting down vast swathes of the public who voted for Labour at least partly because they expected us to protect our national interest by ensuring a soft Brexit. As this latest poll of MPs confirms, the Labour party could, at an instant, command a majority of votes in parliament on the question of post-Brexit single market membership. We could be the ones framing this debate, leading from the front and acting in the national interest and advancing our progressive political agenda. Instead, through our inaction, we are meekly enabling the utterly destructive vision of Brexit being imposed on the country by the most extreme anti-European wing of the Conservative Party.

There’s still time for the Labour leadership to do the right thing, but that time is starting to run short and so is patience.

Wes Streeting is Labour MP for Ilford North and a supporter of Open Britain. 

BBC
Show Hide image

Can Britain’s new powers to investigate unexplained wealth prevent real-life McMafias?

The government is waking up to the fact that global criminals are fond of London. 

The BBC’s McMafia, a story of high-flying Russian mobsters and international money launderers woven into the fabric of London, ended this month. Despite the dramatic TV twists, the subject matter has its basis in reality. As a barrister dealing with cases that involve Russia and former Soviet states, my experience is that politicians and business people use the apparatus of the state to put rivals out of business by any means possible.

In McMafia, previously straight-laced fund manager Alex Godman (played by James Norton) begins transferring money under the cover of a new investment fund. With a click of a button, he can transfer a shady partner’s money around the world. As the Paradise Papers underlined, money can indeed be hidden through the use of complex company structures registered in different countries, many of which do not easily disclose the names of owners and beneficiaries. One company can be owned by another, so the owner of Company A (in Panama) might be Company B (in the Cayman Islands) which is owned by Company C (in the Seychelles) which owns property in London. To find out who owns the property, at least three separate jurisdictions must be contacted and international co-operation arranged – and that’s a simple structure. Many companies will have multiple owners, making it even more difficult to work out who the actual beneficiary is.

I represent individuals before the UK extradition and immigration courts. They are bankers, business people and politicians who have fled persecution in Russia and Ukraine or face fabricated charges in their home country and face extradition or deportation and will often be tortured or put on show trial if we lose. Their opponents will deploy spies, who may pay visits to co-defendants in Russia for “psychological work” (aka torture). Sometimes the threat of torture or ruin against a person’s family is enough to make them confess to crimes they didn’t commit. I have seen family members of my clients issued with threats of explicit violence and the implicit destruction of their life. Outside their close relatives’ homes in Russia, cars have been set on fire. Violence and intimidation are part of the creed that permeates the country’s business and political rivalries.

As in McMafia, London has long played a bit part in these rivalries, but the UK government has been slow to act. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent turned defector, was killed in London using Polonium 210 – a radioactive substance put into a cup of tea. Although Russian state involvement was suspected from the beginning, the UK government tried to block certain material being released into the public domain, leading his family to complain that the UK’s relations with Russia were being put before the truth. In 2016, a decade after his death, the inquiry finally delivered its verdict: there was a “strong probability” Litvinenko was murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. Yet in the same breath as condemning the act, David Cameron’s spokeswoman said the UK would have to “weigh carefully” the incident against “the broader need to work with Russia on certain issues”.

The government of Cameron’s successor has however been quick to use McMafia as a spring-board to publicise its new Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO). These new investigatory powers are purportedly to be used to stop the likes of Alex from hiding money from the authorities. Anyone with over £50,000 of property who is politically exposed or suspected of a serious crime, will be forced to disclose the source of their wealth on request. While most British homeowners would own more than £50,000, the individuals are likely to be high profile politicians or under investigation already by the authorities. If they fail to respond punctually, they risk forfeiting their property.

The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has long campaigned for such measures, highlighting cases such as the first family of Azerbaijan owning property in Hampstead or senior Russian politicians believed to own flats in Whitehall. Previously, confiscating hidden assets has been a lengthy and complex process: when the High Court confiscated an £11m London house belonging to a Kazakh dissident, the legal process took seven years.

The new Unexplained Wealth Orders mean that the onus is shifted to the owner of the property to prove legitimacy and the origin of the wealth. The authorities will have much greater power to investigate where finance and investment originated. But in order for them to work effectively, they will have to be backed up by expert prosecutors. The government still has a long way to go before it makes London a less attractive place to hide money.

Ben Keith is a barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill specialising in extradition, immigration, serious fraud, human rights and public law.