NO!

Labour's at best, current EU stance, which may be a tactical ploy to deflate it as an election issue. If it is, it has worked well, if not they'll be faced with the same issues the Tories are having with the economy.

She's a professor - her reputation wouldn't withstand making things up, whereas future funding is something Labour (and the Tories) have been shady about during the whole campaign, and what they have said has borne out the argument she makes.

And yes, any opening up on relations with other European countries would be beneficial and no doubt help to plug the finance black hole. But with Starmer, I reckon rowing back on Brexit is very unlikely to happen in any meaningful way. It's like a throwback to the Blair years - "It's worse than you think. I really do believe in it."

I don't know enough about her to make a judgement call, however that said, Labour are hemmed in by the state of the UK economy and there are few ways to generate the income for investment. Outside investment is one option, while another is growing the economy by increasing trade. They most obvious is to move closer to the EU, perhaps starting with full EU standards realignment and then to do what it takes to somehow re-enter the Single Market. Starmer has mentioned realignment in some areas but has ruled out re-entering the Single Market. That being the case, they don't have much leeway to do anything else, apart from making massive cuts, as he's ruled out tax rises.

To the point where they are going to have to be a lot more radical than they promise just to stop things like universities and local councils from going bust.

Labour's campaign might talk about change in vague terms but actually delivering positive change will require bold and at times radical thinking!

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2024, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

of relaxing their adherence to Brexit except in the vaguest terms. I don't know why I can't convey that to you. If all you have is ad hominems about an academic you admit you know nothing about, it's not much of a basis for a discussion.

Entering the single market would entail accepting freedom of movement of people as one of the EU's Four Freedoms (of movement of people, goods, services and capital). Given the rhetoric they've come out with about immigration, that's a non-starter.

That also rules out being part of a customs union, and that is one of the aspects that's hitting the country's economy worst. They can "realign" all they like, the goods still have to be traded across frontiers, and that entails costs.

And it's notable how much the question of costs has been glossed over during the election campaign. The most concrete commitment Labour's given while it seeks to change as little as possible from the Tories' pledges on tax and fiscal policy etc. is to crack down on tax avoidance (though not evasion for some reason) among the very rich. That's obviously worth doing for its own sake and long overdue, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the depth of the problem.

spoken about moving back towards the EU, apart from Starmer's view on alignment

https://www.politico.eu/article/labours-plans-to-ease-post-brexit-trade-likely-to-require-accepting-eu-rules/

I AM saying that they are likely to be left with little choice because of the economic situation that they will continue to find themselves in.

I am also saying that I don't expect much if anything in that change to occur before at least the first half of the next parliament, maybe even by the start of the following parliament.

Finally if there is a point at which the UK makes an application to rejoin, it will likely be in as much as a couple of decades time. What might preclude any rejoining is the mandatory joining the Euro and Schengen.

Candidates are expected to commit to joining the currency union, but the timescale is deliberately vague - the EU doesn't want countries which aren't economically ready to do so to adopt the euro as it would risk destabilizing that country's economy and the currency as a whole. There are a number of examples of member states which have signed up to such a commitment and have delayed the process by many years, even indefinitely. There are no penalties for doing that. Schengen might be a barrier, but given its obvious advantages for countries that have agreed to it, one would hope the debate about immigration might have become less heated that far down the road so it might be a non-issue.

I'm at a loss to try to figure out what you're trying to say at all. In one post you say, "The most obvious is to move closer to the EU, starting with full EU standards realignment and then to do what it takes to somehow re-enter the Single Market", then you're backtracking from that impossible scenario and kicking the ball down the road and saying "it will likely be in as much as a couple of decades time". By that time, I'll probably be dead and our remaining national utilities will have been long traded away.

None of what you've written is germane to the argument of the OP, in fact it seems like you're floundering for a counter-argument to an argument that hasn't been put forward.

Muriel and a few others of us have pointed out how Labour's wilfully painted itself into a corner, and you seem to agree. Its lack of choices is a result of political decisions, and those are the same decisions many of us are alarmed at because we went down that road in the Blair years and following them, and it looks like we may be facing that scenario writ large because Labour hasn't needed to seriously account for itself during this election because the Tories are such basket cases and Labour is set on much the same route. That stance by Blair and Brown in turn led to a backlash that landed us with another extended term of Tory rule, continuing the ratcheting effect that sees the UK's politics tend ever rightward and our public services degraded to the point where it's possible to sell privatization as the only possible course of action.

You're actually doing it yourself, by saying "they don't have much leeway to do anything else". But yes, they could build the infrastructure by borrowing as a government, rather than asking private corporations to borrow to do it and take ownership. In the long term, it's be a better deal for the country, because it wouldn't be paying BlackRock etc. to be allowed to use the infrastructure. It's the problem we've had with PFI and privatised water. Those made the country's balance sheet look better in the short term, and worse in the long term.

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2024, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

The local Labour party was put in special measures by Keir Starmer last year owing to the many issues surrounding the PFI deal struck between Sheffield's Labour run City Council and Amey for road maintenance.

Even if a lot of councillors on all sides can't admit it publicly, privately many will admit that the PFI deal has been a disaster.

So yeah, it does beg many questions of Labour as to why they are bringing PFI back. It has the potential to fail on a major scale, which could cause serious damage to both Labour and the country.

And it’s costing us more than we generally admit