Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter

How Should Labour Handle The Brexit Referendum?

Denis MacShane 19th June 2015

Denis MacShane

Denis MacShane

As the Commons begins to discuss the Brexit plebiscite how should Labour handle the referendum?  By far the most important intervention was not a speech in the EU referendum bill debate but the warning from a troika of pro-European union leaders – Frances O’Grady of the TUC, Dave Prentis of Unison and Sir Paul Kenny of the GMB – that Cameron cannot assume trade union support if he insists on using his “renegotiation” to weaken Social Europe rights.

Every major referendum on Europe so far this century has been lost because the voter base of the left has voted No to Europe even if the organisers of the anti-EU campaigns have been nationalist politicians mainly on the right. The left-behinds and losers of EU integration take their chance in a plebiscite to punish the leaders who urge them onwards to accept more Europe.

If the trade unions swing against Cameron on Europe this will be a far bigger boost for the Brexit camp than anything else. It will also increase the chances of Labour splitting.

Cameron has to be a unifier if he wants to avoid Brexit. As he struggles with his party and its deep Eurosceptic instincts it is also an opportunity for Labour to escape from its navel-gazing eternal post-mortem and again stand for Britain as a whole.

It was François Mitterrand who observed that ‘the trouble with referendums is voters never answer the question.’ He kept France in Europe by the skin of his teeth in 1992 when what he thought would be an easy Oui to the Maastricht Treaty became the narrowest of results. His successor, Jacques Chirac, breezily called a referendum in 2005, assuming that his own party, the French socialists and all men and women of bonne foi would confirm France’s status as a major EU player.

He forgot about the voters. They listened to socialist tribunes who broke with the official pro-EU party line and linked with the far right and what the French call souverainistes to punish the unpopular Chirac by voting Non to Europe. The left won but lost the presidential election in 2007 as voters were unimpressed by a divided socialist party.

The pattern of major EU referendums is that opinion polls start well but then something happens. The Yes camp are the establishment, the money men, the media, the state functionaries, global business but they are out of touch with the deeper resentment of a voting population that feels the EU exists for others, not for them.

David Cameron has taken a huge risk with his Brexit plebiscite. He is a Eurosceptic himself and made concession after concession to anti-EU forces including giving in to the main UKIP demand – an In-Out referendum .

Cameron can easily lose the referendum for Britain. The sight of him and maybe even Rupert Murdoch standing on their heads and swallowing two decades of anti-EU wordage is not appealing to voters. Instead the task falls to Labour with help from the Lib-Dems, alive in spirit if not in seats, to defeat the isolationists and keep Britain in Europe.

The exact nature of the campaign is not important. Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher did not appear on joint platforms in the 1975 but Labour put up John Smith, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins and others who argued with passion and persuasion that Britain should remain linked to the continent.

Labour can do no less today even if faced with a referendum called for opportunistic vote-grabbing reasons and now under the control of a cabinet stuffed full of anti-Europeans. Labour’s new leader and those who will form the next Labour cabinet need to shine in this campaign with commitment and conviction.

Labour has to avoid two traps. The first is the lure of left nationalist protectionism that marginalised Labour in the 1980s. There will always be a left critique of the EU but that should be a spur to its reform not a retreat to North Korean style rejection of open Europe.

The second is to play tactical games seeking to trip up Cameron. Yes, he is hypocritical and yes, there will be endless Schadenfreude as the MPs he told to hate the EU now turn on him. But Labour should let the Tories eat each other without seeking its own little opportunisms.

Of course some Labour MPs will say No. In 2005 just before the election I was standing behind the Speaker’s Chair with David Cameron waiting to go into the Chamber. The Tory MP, a fellow of All Souls, Robert Jackson, had just defected to Labour in disgust at the anti-Europeanism that infected his party.

I asked Cameron jokingly who would be the next defector? ‘Kate Hoey,’ he replied without a pause. The redoubtable Ulsterwoman has had trenchant views ever since her days as a National Union of Students leader and her opposition to Europe should be recognised and respected.

But Labour must stand for Britain and against the risk of a return to isolationism. Ever since the Conservatives veered off into anti-EU waters in the 1990s, Labour had stood for Britain in Europe. It should not change now. This is a moment which will define Britain for generations to come. Labour should be on the right side of the argument and show that a Tory change to being pro-EU is welcome and in the national interest. Labour can and must win this vote for Britain and for Europe and our partners everywhere in the world.

Denis MacShane

Denis MacShane was a Labour MP (1994-2012) and served as UK minister of Europe. He writes regularly on European politics and Brexit.

You are here: Home / Politics / How Should Labour Handle The Brexit Referendum?

Most Popular Posts

Visentini,ITUC,Qatar,Fight Impunity,50,000 Visentini, ‘Fight Impunity’, the ITUC and QatarFrank Hoffer
Russian soldiers' mothers,war,Ukraine The Ukraine war and Russian soldiers’ mothersJennifer Mathers and Natasha Danilova
IGU,documents,International Gas Union,lobby,lobbying,sustainable finance taxonomy,green gas,EU,COP ‘Gaslighting’ Europe on fossil fuelsFaye Holder
Schengen,Fortress Europe,Romania,Bulgaria Romania and Bulgaria stuck in EU’s second tierMagdalena Ulceluse
income inequality,inequality,Gini,1 per cent,elephant chart,elephant Global income inequality: time to revise the elephantBranko Milanovic

Most Recent Posts

Pakistan,flooding,floods Flooded Pakistan, symbol of climate injusticeZareen Zahid Qureshi
reality check,EU foreign policy,Russia Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a reality check for the EUHeidi Mauer, Richard Whitman and Nicholas Wright
permanent EU investment fund,Recovery and Resilience Facility,public investment,RRF Towards a permanent EU investment fundPhilipp Heimberger and Andreas Lichtenberger
sustainability,SDGs,Finland Embedding sustainability in a government programmeJohanna Juselius
social dialogue,social partners Social dialogue must be at the heart of Europe’s futureClaes-Mikael Ståhl

Other Social Europe Publications

front cover scaled Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans
Untitled design The transatlantic relationship
Women Corona e1631700896969 500 Women and the coronavirus crisis
sere12 1 RE No. 12: Why No Economic Democracy in Sweden?

Eurofound advertisement

Eurofound webinar: Making telework work for everyone

Since 2020 more European workers and managers have enjoyed greater flexibility and autonomy in work and are reporting their preference for hybrid working. Also driven by technological developments and structural changes in employment, organisations are now integrating telework more permanently into their workplace.

To reflect on these shifts, on 6 December Eurofound researchers Oscar Vargas and John Hurley explored the challenges and opportunities of the surge in telework, as well as the overall growth of telework and teleworkable jobs in the EU and what this means for workers, managers, companies and policymakers.


WATCH THE WEBINAR HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

The winter issue of the Progressive Post magazine from FEPS is out!

The sequence of recent catastrophes has thrust new words into our vocabulary—'polycrisis', for example, even 'permacrisis'. These challenges have multiple origins, reinforce each other and cannot be tackled individually. But could they also be opportunities for the EU?

This issue offers compelling analyses on the European health union, multilateralism and international co-operation, the state of the union, political alternatives to the narrative imposed by the right and much more!


DOWNLOAD HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of re-applying the EU fiscal rules

Against the background of the European Commission's reform plans for the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), this policy brief uses the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to simulate the macroeconomic implications of the most relevant reform options from 2024 onwards. Next to a return to the existing and unreformed rules, the most prominent options include an expenditure rule linked to a debt anchor.

Our results for the euro area and its four biggest economies—France, Italy, Germany and Spain—indicate that returning to the rules of the SGP would lead to severe cuts in public spending, particularly if the SGP rules were interpreted as in the past. A more flexible interpretation would only somewhat ease the fiscal-adjustment burden. An expenditure rule along the lines of the European Fiscal Board would, however, not necessarily alleviate that burden in and of itself.

Our simulations show great care must be taken to specify the expenditure rule, such that fiscal consolidation is achieved in a growth-friendly way. Raising the debt ceiling to 90 per cent of gross domestic product and applying less demanding fiscal adjustments, as proposed by the IMK, would go a long way.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ILO advertisement

Global Wage Report 2022-23: The impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power

The International Labour Organization's Global Wage Report is a key reference on wages and wage inequality for the academic community and policy-makers around the world.

This eighth edition of the report, The Impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power, examines the evolution of real wages, giving a unique picture of wage trends globally and by region. The report includes evidence on how wages have evolved through the COVID-19 crisis as well as how the current inflationary context is biting into real wage growth in most regions of the world. The report shows that for the first time in the 21st century real wage growth has fallen to negative values while, at the same time, the gap between real productivity growth and real wage growth continues to widen.

The report analysis the evolution of the real total wage bill from 2019 to 2022 to show how its different components—employment, nominal wages and inflation—have changed during the COVID-19 crisis and, more recently, during the cost-of-living crisis. The decomposition of the total wage bill, and its evolution, is shown for all wage employees and distinguishes between women and men. The report also looks at changes in wage inequality and the gender pay gap to reveal how COVID-19 may have contributed to increasing income inequality in different regions of the world. Together, the empirical evidence in the report becomes the backbone of a policy discussion that could play a key role in a human-centred recovery from the different ongoing crises.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ETUI advertisement

The EU recovery strategy: a blueprint for a more Social Europe or a house of cards?

This new ETUI paper explores the European Union recovery strategy, with a focus on its potentially transformative aspects vis-à-vis European integration and its implications for the social dimension of the EU’s socio-economic governance. In particular, it reflects on whether the agreed measures provide sufficient safeguards against the spectre of austerity and whether these constitute steps away from treating social and labour policies as mere ‘variables’ of economic growth.


DOWNLOAD HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube