Brexit: an opposition in disarray

17/06/2017

Reality dawns. Painfully slowly, the political classes and their fellow travellers in the legacy media are beginning to realise that the current plans for Brexit are taking us nowhere. In fact, to dignify them with the term "plans" is to suggest a level of coherence that simply doesn't exist.

With increasing frequency, therefore, we are seeing them thrashing around for alternatives in the beginnings of a debate that should have been concluded before we went to the polls in the referendum.

Coming to the fore is the idea rejected by everybody, continued participation in the Single Market via the EEA, with so many leaping on the bandwagon that the wheels are starting to buckle and the axles are bending. And then, along comes Chuka Umunna, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to tell us that "Labour is clear: Brexit would be better with single market membership".

From recent events, however, one seems to recall that it was Mrs May who boasted obsessively about being "clear" on just about everything – usually preceding statements that were Delphic in their inscrutability. But if "obscure" is the new meaning for "clear", then Chuka Umunna is stepping up to the plate with a vengeance.

Jeremy and our Labour team are quite right to prioritise a "jobs-first" Brexit, says Mr Umunna, as opposed to the Tory approach of sacrificing our economy on the altar of lower immigration. But, he says, "there is a discussion ongoing as to how we would achieve these aims if we took government during the Brexit negotiations".

That Labour might take over at some time during the negotiations is, of course, a possibility – if somewhat remote. So it is encouraging to find that the party is making preparations. This is rather more than the Conservatives seem to have done.

That in itself allows Mr Umunna an easy barb as he notes that the debate within his party on this "does not come close to matching the clan warfare within the Tory party". I doubt, he says, whether Ruth Davidson and Steve Baker can bear to be in the same room together, let alone find common ground over Brexit.

However, in a Delphic observation that rivals Mrs May's level of clarity, he notes that "there are different nuances among Labour folk". He puts it "no more strongly than that".

One of those "nuances" comes from John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Contradicting what appears to have been the party line, he has in the past few days said he does not think single market membership is "feasible", something with which the "white van man" slayer, Emily Thornberry, has agreed.

However, raising the prospect of "splits" within the party, Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade and Liam Fox's counterpart, has raised the prospect of "reformed membership of the single market and customs union". Keir Starmer, Labour's Mr Brexit, has said that his party should keep such an option on the table.

Chuka Umunna, therefore, is evidently charged with papering over the cracks. "The key point to make", he says, "is that absolutely nobody here is arguing that the single market and customs union are bad things". The debate, he avers, "does not threaten our unity".

Here, we learn that "unity" is everything. And just to prove it, Mr Umunna is able to tell us that: "Our affiliated trades unions are strongly supportive of both, given their importance to jobs and workers’ rights". From John to Keir, he says, "we all agree that single market membership, or at least a deal that gives us the exact same benefits, is the best economic option for Britain".

Attempting to put the Labour spin on it, he says that the argument around full membership of the single market is about "whether it can be squared with delivering the desire of many of our voters to gain greater control over immigration".

But, he says – and here comes the meat: "free movement is not unconditional – you can already be required to leave our country after three months if you don’t have a job, but governments have chosen not to do this". Equally, Chuka Umunna declares, "membership of the single market does not mean totally uncontrolled immigration from the European Union".

At this point, though, his comments get bizarre. "Within the European treaties", he says, "restrictions on free movement are explicitly allowed for reasons of 'public policy, public security or public health'", then adding: "So Liechtenstein, which is outside the EU but in the single market, is allowed to impose quotas on EU migrants".

I did say "bizarre". The quote about "public policy" comes from Directive 2004/38/EC (Article 27), which gives grounds for restricting freedom of movement – with the rider that: "These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends".

The issues here are numerous and various. The exclusions cited are not in the "European treaties" but in a Directive. Furthermore, Liechtenstein is not subject to either the European treaties or the Directive. The exclusions come from the EEA Agreement (Article 112), which allows action on the basis of "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties".

Chuka Umunna should not be making such errors. This is monumental disinformation which, if it reflects the state of knowledge in the Labour Party, betrays a staggering level of ignorance. This we always suspected, but here is strong evidence of a most disturbing kind.

And it does not stop there. The platform for Mr Umunna's display of ignorance was the Guardian. Wasn't there any one there, in the entire editorial process, who had the knowledge to point out the inconsistencies in the piece. Wasn't there anyone who knew that this was an EEA issue, and not a matter for the "European treaties".

But then, that points to a broader omission. Umunna writes a whole piece about the UK's continued membership of the Single Market and does not once mention the EEA. Instead, we get his reference to Barry Gardiner raising the prospect of "reformed membership of the single market and customs union".

For heaven's sake! What does "reformed membership of the single market and customs union" actually mean? And how long is it going to take before MPs – any MP – begins to understand that the UK cannot leave the EU and stay in its customs union?

Here, though, we have a rare focus on the Labour Party. Necessarily, much of our attention is on the party of government, where we see chaos, misunderstanding and ignorance. But this piece shows that the problems are by no means confined to government. We have the main opposition that is also all at sea, unable to offer a coherent position on Brexit.

And the Guardian, the platform for conveying Labour's disarray, then offers an editorial, blithely informing us that: "Theresa May needs to be deflected by facts rather than delusions to try and make our post-EU future work".

It seems to me that this loss-leading newspaper could benefit by being "deflected" by a few facts. Instead, it asserts that Keir Starmer has something intelligent to offer in declaring that the Prime Minister "had been wrong to take continued membership of the customs union and the single market off the table", thereby perpetuating the confusion over the customs union.

We are badly served by the Conservatives, but it is evident that Labour is no better. It has me wondering whether our representatives in Parliament had ever failed us before, to such an extent over such an important policy issue. This alone is enough to question the entire value of the institution – and the media that supports it.

Over the election, Corbyn's slogan was "for the many not the few" but, taking up his theme, all he is actually delivering is a situation where, never in history (or so I believe) have so many been so badly served by so few.