You are here: Home » Comment »

Douglas Alexander’s ‘Tory light’ EU policy is not right for Labour

November 14, 2011 11:01 am

Author:

Jon Worth

Tags:

Share this Article

On the day before Labour Party Conference, Ed Miliband announced a policy that Labour would restrict student fees to £6000 rather than the Tories’ £9000 level. Everyone shrugged. Here was a short term, tactical announcement that made no effort to get to the heart of the problem about financing of higher education.

Today Douglas Alexander has done precisely the same thing with regard to Labour’s policy towards the European Union with his op-ed in The Guardian. What he advocates is no long term solution – either for Labour or for the UK.

Alexander is right to say Labour should not be defenders of the status quo (something I have also argued), but his substance… seems to be precisely the status quo. He says that the Tories are too relaxed about the development of a two speed EU, but also (at least in The Guardian news story on all of this) says that Labour should rule out joining the Euro. He advocates using the prospect of EU treaty change to protect the rights of non-Eurozone members – how does that differ from the coalition’s policies? He has two goals for the EU: extending the single market into services, the digital economy and energy (that’s happening anyway), and some vague ideas for the EU to have a greater role in the world. Big deal.

Alexander also constructs two straw men, only to then strike them down – that the coalition is putting the UK’s EU membership in question, and that the EU is on a mission of state-building with flags and anthems. Nick Clegg in the coalition, and the impotency of the EU institutions respectively put those issues to bed.

Instead Alexander should be thinking longer term. He should be learning the lessons of George Lakoff and starting to frame a vision of a social EU and moving away from the tired pro-European versus Eurosceptic frame. He and Ed Balls should be ready to stand up for a EU-wide Financial Transaction Tax. In the medium term Labour should not be scared to revisit the issue of Eurozone membership – it’s not as if the UK’s economic performance outside the Euro is so fine and dandy. If Labour looked across the Channel it would find countries with economies and social security systems more competitive and more equal than in the UK – there are vital lessons to learn.

In short, the vision for Britain’s relationship outlined by Alexander seems to be a ‘Tory light’ policy – to entrench the UK’s partial isolationism, but with fractionally less negative vocabulary than would be expected of William Hague or David Cameron. I’m left thoroughly non-plussed.

Daniel Speight
And yet the EEC was never a matter of principle for the party. It may have been for some of the members but not for the party as a whole. So with the EU we can be very opportunist and say what bits we like and which bits we don’t and even if we want to stay in it or not. Those that treat membership as a principle haven’t looked at our fairly recent history.

Anonymous
Those that don’t treat membership as a principle haven’t looked at our fairly near future.
In fact, I’d go further and say that what the Labour party believed or didn’t in the past is completely irrelevant. The world has changed around us, and if we want to have the social welfare state that we have, the business regulations that we have, even the imperfect democracy that we have, we have to try to protect them and extend them by action on a European level.
This stuff about how we couldn’t possibly be like the French on business regulation or like the Germans on labour market is the narcissism of small differences. How different are the European economies from each other when set against the US, China or India? Not that different – not so different as to make a reformed, more democratic and more united Europe impossible, or not worth fighting for.
And yet here’s the second party of the UK backing away from that into a policy that could have been photocopied from the John Major playbook. “Protect the City, no new Brussels diktats and stay out of the Euro.” Is that it? Really? Nothing about social Europe, nothing about democratic legitimacy?
We chose to be out of the euro, and at the moment that seems like a good move (though there are plenty of economies in the Eurozone that are doing OK). In doing that, we lost one chance to influence how that part of Europe gets built. Now we’re throwing away the rest by retreating into the world of red lines, batting for Britain and god bless the bankers.
What a wasted opportunity.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Actually, the EU was a matter of principle for some politicians in every party – but initially, the keenest pro-Europeans were moderate Conservatives. Many social democrats were not in favour, although certainly Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams were fundamentally pro-EU and I think the Europe issue was an important factor in the formation of the SDP
I sam a pro-European, but certainly in practice both Labour and Tory have been pragmatic

http://twitter.com/jonworth Jon Worth
@ba6d5501696e5b6bb37705bd7b6c9fc4:disqus Interesting thoughts, BUT there is one key issue you forget regarding the Euro – I am not advocating joining the Euro in the short term, and its design is not right as it stands. But having said that countries such as Poland and Denmark increase their leverage over the future direction of the EU by not categorically ruling out membership of the currency – that categoric decision by Douglas Alexander (reflecting the decision by the current government) very much weakens the UK’s negotiation position. If the Eurozone were to be adequately reformed (as it has to be), and this is done in line with some of the UK’s principles, then why still categorically rule out joining?
On the China / Beijing thing – here I disagree. The EU as a whole, united, is better to negotiate with China. So the priority has to be to make the whole of the internal market function, and the Euro is a part of this. It’s not one or the other.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
I think that sums up the situation very accurately
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall
I would agree that the Cold War stand off did play some role in preserving the peace until 1989, but given the almost continuous series of wars over previous centuries among territories encompassed by the original 6 state EEC, I think it is ludicrous to deny that the EEC and successor institutions have not contributed to the peace.
Since 1989, and with the expansion of the EC then EU, the blanket of peace extended by the EU into central Europe has become more important. There are many possible flashpoints for future wars if the EU breaks up – e.g. German individuals’ claims to property in Silesia and Sudetenland; Slovaks and Hungarian disputes; Hungarians’ treatment in Romania; Macedonia and Greece; Macedonia and Bulgaria; the relationship of Moldova and Romania; and inependent Catalunya; the treatment of Russian speakers in the old Baltic states; a break up of the Ukraine; Belarus; Trieste and Istria.
Anyone who dismisses the potential for war in Europe in the future, as the ludicrous Danny Alexander seemed to, has absolutely no historical consciousness. The EU is the best possible institution to prevent future wars.
People who complain about its cost really need to consider the costs of any way, even little ones.

Anonymous
The Cold War standoff was THE deciding factor 1945-1989 / 1991. The missiles, tanks and troops of the USA and USSR stopped war, not some trading and social agreements between a declining imperial power, a nation occupied and dismembered and a handful of other shattered states.
The EU (and predecessors) played a part in entrenching a more peaceful existence and greater co-operation but they only did this in the shadow of the Great Game being played out. The Cold War gave Europe the reason and the breathing room to actually create things like the EEC by vastly reducing the possibilities of European war by European states.
To claim it was the ECSC, the EEC or the EC which stopped war is to really try and appropriate a success which belongs elsewhere, even then by mistake. They contributed to peace but for many decades that was all they did and it was not a great contribution considering the circumstances.
Rather than try and claim a fictional past triumph, the EU should look to see what it can do in the future (as you suggest) and what it actually has achieved.
The EU is one important institution which may prevent future possible wars and then only if it has the clout (money) to continue to spend, spend, spend to bind nations closer together and promise a better economic future if nations let their nationalistic passions die down.

Jonathan Todd
Jon,
Thank you.
Re: Euro – I see what you mean. But I think that the reform that the Euro needs is so substantial, and it is not certain this reform will come or will actually work if it does, that it seems a little strange to be being positive about UK membership of the Euro at this stage. That said, I think Peter Mandelson made a good point about the Euro-plus pact and UK influence on Newsnight last night. I’m not clear about something here, though, and perhaps you know: Could the UK join the Euro-plus pact without committing to join the Euro? If we can join the Euro-plus pact without committing to join the Euro, then surely the decision of the UK government to not join the Euro-plus pact is particularly bizarre?
Re: China – Yes, the UK is better able to negotiate with China in and through the EU. Yes, a united EU is better able to do this than a non-united EU. But, while they may in some ways complement each other, the Euro and the Single Market are not synonymous. Obviously, the UK is in the Single Market and not in the Euro. There are important debates about the functioning of the Single Market that are distinct from debates about the Euro. I think the focus for British social democrats should be on winning these Single Market debates, not conflating them with the already highly complicated and difficult Euro debates. In these Single Market debates feature, amongst other things, the kind of social rules that I referred to yesterday and which are surely a particularly important social democratic priority.
Best, Jonathan
Pingback: Labour's new stance on Europe is cynical and opportunistic. Good. – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.csfproperty.com/ Property in Portugal for Sale
I also agree with the two speed statement. Now everything appears to be going belly up for the Euro countries are turning on each other. This is only making the divide more apparent and is set to get worse unless the ECB and IMF step in. No one is making any agressive decisions yet. Will the Euro stand the test of time and will they bring in new leglislation to make it easier to boot out less valuable countries I think it is a possibility.
Pingback: Open Europe blog: A closer look at Labour’s “new” EU policy

Latest

Comment
Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher
By Chris Williamson
If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]
Read more →
Featured
The austerity consensus has collapsed
By Owen Jones
There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]
Read more →
Comment
Should Labour go further on football reform?
By Ben Shave
“As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]
Read more →
Comment
Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?
By Ann Black
Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]
Read more →
News
It’s the budget what won it…
Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…
Read more →