Coffee House Shots
Is Brexit safe under Labour?
Now before you listen to this podcast, we come to you with a message, not a plea. We have a new subscription offer. The stage is set, get a front-row seat and the run-up to the election by subscribing to the spectator for just three pounds for three months. We even send you a free special election mug while stocks last. Go to spectator.co.uk/mug. Hello and welcome to the special Saturday edition of Coffee House Shots. I'm James Hill, I'm joined today by the writer and broadcaster and trade unions Paul Emery, to discuss Labour's position on Brexit. This episode has also been streamed on Spectators TV. Now Paul, the shutter chance of a Rachel Reeves recently gave an interview setting out Labour's plans for a relationship post-Brexit with the European Union. She says that the party doesn't want to pursue a rejoin option, won't try and rejoin the single market, all the customs union, but does want to have a close relationship with Brussels. What do you make of all this? I think the devil will be in the detail. I'm pleased as that rare thing, a Labour member and a Brexit supporter that the manifesto explicitly ruled out, rejoining the European Union under a Labour government ruled out, rejoining the single market and the customs union. But obviously, I think we're all astute enough to know that there are ways, potentially, if Labour wanted to. I've kind of getting back in the single market and customs union in all that name, and ultimately getting back in the EU in all that name. So that's why I say that the devil will be in the detail. I mean, look, I support Brexit. I've got no particular issue where things can be improved, where the trade deal that we've got with the European Union can be improved, then so bear, I think it would be foolish to say that nothing should ever be revisited as part of that deal. But at the same time, I think it's crucially important for Labour, particularly if they want to win back and retain the very many millions of votes that they lost in places like the Red Wall, that the essence of Brexit is not undermined. So I think it would be very wise for the Labour Party under keyer Starmer in the next government to make sure it does nothing to be seen to be undermined in that vote. And how much do you think that Brexit is going to be a factor going forward? I mean, we saw recently in the local elections, prior to the German election, those kind of leave voting areas, which previously were going to proportionally Tory, now seem to be falling into line with the rest of the country and all being quite pro-labor. Do you think that Brexit, which obviously has changed a lot instead of favourability, ratings, is still going to be a factor if, as you could have suggested, Labour at some point moves away from its current position, which is ruling out during the EU and actually potentially unwinding the Brexit deal that Boris Johnson did in 2019? Well, I think Labour is clearly going to win lots of votes back in those Red Wall constituencies. And it's going to do that largely, not because the working class have fallen back in love with the Labour Party. But I think there's such a degree of antipathy towards the Conservative Party. And I think particularly in those sort of Red Wall post-industrial working class communities, many of which voted for the Tories for the first time in 2019, I think those people feel so let down and feel so betrayed by the Conservative Party. They lent the Conservative Party their votes for the first time and the Labour Party, sorry, the Conservative Party didn't deliver on that. So I think there's, yes, a lot of those votes are going to go back to Labour, but not because Labour has inspired those communities or even because those communities especially trust the Labour Party over issues like Brexit anymore, but simply, grudgingly, because people are so desperate to get rid of the Tories. And I would implore the Labour Party, don't unlearn the lessons of Brexit, don't unlearn the lessons of what happened in 2019. There's a danger that the Labour Party could forget that over 60% of the Labour constituencies pre-2019 voted for Brexit. There's still, I sense, a feeling of anger at those elements of the establishment, including the leadership of the Labour Party that tried to undo that vote. I remember being in the hall in 2018 at the Labour Party conference where the Labour Party officially adopted the policy in favour of the second referendum. And I remember listening to all the whoops and the cheers in the hall where people thought this was a fantastic thing and thinking, actually, we have just given notice to all of those MPs in post-industrial Britain that their jobs are going to be going at the next election, and that's precisely what happened. The Labour Party has still got a lot of ground to make up in those constituencies, and the last thing it needs to be seen to be doing is rolling back the Brexit vote, or in any way, as I say, essentially trying to undermine it. What's your view about the appeal of reform in those areas? I think currently the Labour leadership has regarded reform as a kind of side show, sort of intruding on private drama and the Tory side. And you see Kiss Dharma's comments on Monday, really not very keen to intervene in what he called noise. What do you think of reforms appeal in those kind of constituencies we've just been talking about, the so-called Red Wall? Obviously Labour was likely to win this time, but potentially reform could get a good strong showing in some of these places, and they could then build on that for 2029. Yeah, I think reform are going to take more votes off the Conservative Party that they're going to take off the Labour Party. But certainly there will be a temptation, I think, among some working-class people in those Red Wall constituencies to vote for reform. Just the same as in its previous incarnation as the Brexit Party a few years ago, and managed to sweep up votes in some of those constituencies. I mean, I'm not a supporter of reform. I don't think they're essentially a Thatcherite Party. I don't think they are the answer for working-class people. But I sense that where people are going to vote Labour in some of those constituencies, it's almost like they're going to, they're going to give their votes on loan again, so the Labour Party. Almost like the victim of domestic abuse has been promised by her partner that come back to me. I promise that won't happen again. I promise I won't lay a hand on you again. And the partner sort of tentatively goes back in the hope that that pledge is true. I suspect that many people who are going to go back to Labour in working-class constituencies have the same kind of mindset. I think if the Labour Party lets them down again over some of those issues, then I think it's in real danger of forfeiting those votes forever. And then as I say, that doesn't mean that there are areas to be improved. I think most people in those constituencies actually believe in a sensible grown-up relationship with the European Union and where some things can be renegotiated. That's fine. But the main precepts of what drove Brexit need to be honoured, there can be no return to free movement. I do think people in those constituencies want to look at things like state aid. And now that we're free of the EU, we can subsidise our industry, including our manufacturing industry, without running foul of EU competition law. Can look at things like public ownership taking the railways back into public ownership, for example. There are things that a Labour government can potentially do outside of the European Union, which I think drove the vote in many of those working-class communities for Brexit. And I think that impinges on that. I think, as I say, Labour runs the risk then of forfeiting those votes for a long time. I suppose the big post-Brexit challenge really the last five years has been the small boats crossings as well, which is not really about European Union membership, which it applies ever across the whole continent, but equally, we're going to probably have to deal with you in some form, whether it be kind of bilaterally, with France or whether with the European headquarters in Brussels. I suppose the danger here, of course, Paul, is that on the one hand, a lot of voters, particularly those who are supposed to leave, would be pragmatic enough and say, well, we'll do a deal, happy to do deals, et cetera, in terms of working to stop migration across continent and criminal gangs. But on the other, there's a real danger, of course, that when we hear politicians and labour politicians talk about, you know, closer ties with Europe, is that sort of code for a deal, which is going to involve, you know, more migrant essentially coming here from Europe, where obviously, you know, Italy have really struggled much worse than us in terms of kind of small boats crossings. I suppose there's a danger really, isn't there, Labour, which is that if you're talking about a kind of post-Brexit settlement with the EU, how does it involve one that doesn't really see kind of communities like you're talking about, feel as though they've basically, you know, not been probably dealing with this issue of migration and small boats crossings? Well, Labour's been talking quite big on immigration, saying it needs to come down and that they've got the plans to be able to deliver that on slightly skeptical about that. And of course, they haven't put any figure on what they think that the immigration numbers needs to come down to. So essentially, you know, it can come down by one and the Labour Party can say, well, we're delivered on our promise. So yeah, I'm skeptical about that. But there needs to be a sharp reduction in the numbers. There is no question that people are not just actually in Red Bull, working class and post-industrial constituencies, but I think across the board, there's a general belief and a desire among voters that actually immigration is clearly too high, immigration numbers are clearly too high, and the numbers need to come down. And I think from Labour's point of view, what it misunderstood for years is that actually that desire to see immigration at modest and manageable levels was not driven by bigotry or nativism or xenophobia, which I think, and I speak as a long standing member of the Labour movement. I think large parts of the Labour movement did believe that that desire to see numbers reduced were kind of driven by sinister motives. Actually, I think we are largely a tolerant nation, including working class communities. I think there's a general acceptance that we need immigration. But like all things, it needs to be managed. And I think the fascinating thing is actually in many respects that it wasn't that long ago, relatively, that most of the Labour movement understood that the Labour supply was actually a market dynamic, which needed regulating like all market dynamics, so as to allow governments to plan around welfare and jobs and employment and housing and so on. And actually, the open borders position was always very much a fringe position in the Labour movement. Now that's kind of turned around completely. And of course, is the argument that free movement is a bosses dream by having the freedom to shunt workers from low wage economies to high wage economies. It allows them to save on Labour costs and reduce wages and so on. These were always traditionally very, very strong arguments within the Labour movement. And I think going to your question, Labour needs to rediscover that thread. It needs to rediscover the traditional position that actually we need control of the Labour supply, not just for economic reasons, but actually for reasons of social and cultural cohesion as well. If it doesn't get that message, if it doesn't deliver on the promise to reduce immigration numbers and doesn't actually reduce them to sustainable levels, then I think it's going to find that that's going to be one of the main reasons why people end up not supporting it potentially in the future. That has got to be a priority for any incoming Labour government. I'm not sure large parts of the party get that to be honest. I think it'd probably be fair to say that the parliamentary party, their view on it, might be different from say large numbers of Labour's vote, who we can turn out in the polls on the 4th of July. In terms of the trade union movement, I'm fascinated to know what you think about this. In terms of the three biggest unions, for instance, all have social care workers in their sector. They will, for instance, very invested in the kind of debate around social care, how much we pay workers, and also how many social care visas we have to attract people to come here to work in the social care sector. What do you think the trade unions, different trade unions who are sort of funding Labour, supporting Labour, what do you think their role will be in this whole debate around numbers and migration? Will they be sort of pushing behind numbers, or will they be more of a restraint, as you say, because of course there's this argument about the bosses would love to have unlimited free Labour coming into the country and suppressing wages? Well, I think the record proves over recent years that the trade union movement has been entirely relaxed, actually, about the increases in immigration. And certainly, whenever the new figures are really showing that the numbers have got yet again, I'm rooted in the trade union movement. I never hear a squeak from the leadership of the trade union movement. Actually, this is an issue because this is again going to create an oversupply of Labour in certain sectors, and inevitably, that's going to create pressure on wages and so on. So the trade union movement, I think broadly, has, unfortunately, become the, certainly, the upper echelons of it has become broadly the mouthpiece of the London Liberal class in recent years. And it's almost seen, well, it is seen, actually, as a high status opinion now on the left and within the trade union movement, that you have to be pro-open borders, because if you're not, if you argue for regulation of the Labour supply, then you're essentially lining up with Nigel Farage. And I don't think it's any coincidence that as the trade union movement has become more and more increasingly kind of radically progressive, as it were, on these issues, than it has less and less spoken for people who, once upon a time, it did speak up for in working class communities. When you look at, particularly over the last 40 years or so, the huge reduction in the density of trade union membership across industry, and the trade union figures in terms of membership, essentially, now half of what they were 40 years ago. And a lot of that is, of course, to do with things like the industrialization and so on. But there's no doubt, I think, that many people who are unrepresented by trade unions now feel that the trade union movement just doesn't really speak for them, doesn't really particularly care about things like immigration and the potential impacts on wages in the construction, retail, hospitality sector, and so on, because its leaders are just too intent on being seen as progressive voices in the national debate. I've had these arguments in the trade union movement for years, and no one has listened, unfortunately. Well, I think it's fascinating when you think about, you know, Keir Starmer looks at when a landslide majority in two weeks time, Britain has turned to the left, and actually you look at other nations around Europe, you look at other nations in the G7, you know, Canada is tipped to go conservative, same I think is true of Japan, also you've got the German federal elections next year, and of course, we very shortly have the French elections as well, there's the potential that just as the UK is turning left, you see the rest of Britain's allies turning to the right, and I suppose the 2020s look in some ways likely to be dominated by the kind of, you know, populist, perhaps you can call it, or, you know, sort of right-wing surge in much more concerned about the nation's state of migration, you've got mass migration kind of coming from the Middle East and other areas around that region, you know, being pushed through and sort of thanks to things like, you know, cheaper flights, etc., and of course, the criminal gangs as well. I mean, what do you think of the Chancellor of a Labour government being able to kind of navigate all these kind of twirling, swirling sort of currents about, you know, things about, you know, concern about migration, concern about, you know, the future of the country, how well will a Labour government with a big majority potentially navigate all that, because you can see a lot of pitfalls happening very fast for this government. Well, I think in terms of the European thing, I suspect that the many millions who are going to go back to the Labour Party at this election, and let's look again, for example, working-class constituencies and places like the Red Wall, are not necessarily doing it because they think, you know, suddenly I've decided to move to the left politically and the Labour Party represents the left, and therefore that's where I'm going to place my vote. I think it's much more straightforward than that. I think they just think that Tories have found, under the first past opposed system, realistically, there's only one alternative that's going to form the government and that's the Labour Party, because I'm so angry at the Tories. That's where I'm going to put my vote. I think it's different on the continent in many places where, you know, there's proportional representation, and some of the smaller parties, particularly on the riot and some of the national populist parties can potentially hold real sway. But I think the rising support of reform is interesting, and that's something to keep an eye on. I think that for the first time, certainly I sense for the first time there is potentially a bit of an existential crisis for the Tory party. I don't think I've really sensed that before, even in, you know, 1997, for example, when they suffered very bad defeat at the polls. I think now with the upsurge in support for reform, the Labour Party perhaps needs to be on its guard, because there is the potential that if it is seen to fail working class people, and if it doesn't get to grips with some of those issues, you know, rebalancing the economy in favour of working people, getting real wages, going up, investing in public services, and so on, getting people through the cost of living crisis, and particularly if it doesn't deal with the issue of immigration, where reform is stressing, I don't think the answer, but none of the answer, but nonetheless, we'll seek to capitalise on that. And there is the potential, I don't predict it, but I think there is the potential for the sort of national populist upsurge that we've seen on the continent. It will be difficult, as I said, because of the nature of the first parts of the post-system, but if Labour fouls to deliver, then I think the ingredients are potentially there for it. Thank you, Paul, and thank you for listening to Coffee Outshots. [Music]