Postcards from the edge of hard Brexit, outlining other possibilities
|
Version 0 of 1. Polly Toynbee’s article (The public are already turning against Brexit. When will Theresa May listen?, theguardian.com, 20 October) made me think that there might be a route back to power for Labour, if it became the party for the 48% who wish to remain in the EU, and for the many more who are coming to that view as the consequences of leaving become apparent. A decision to challenge the referendum result would need to be accompanied by policies to help those who have been left behind by globalisation, many of whom voted Brexit because they had so little to lose. This is partly about investing in a more balanced distribution of economic growth, but also requires unapologetic support for redistribution, focusing on the need to address an unprecedented increase in inequality, and the real hardship faced by those left behind. With the Tory government set on inflicting enormous and irreversible damage to our economy, our society, and our union, there is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Labour to be the party of the sane alternative, attracting voters who would not perhaps normally vote Labour. Who knows, with a bit of compromise, it might even be possible to forge a united Labour opposition around that position. It is perhaps the only issue where there is a real possibility of attracting enough new Labour voters to evict the Conservatives.Mick FosterChelmsford, Essex • Polly Toynbee refers to the four freedoms. Why only four freedoms? Why is each beneficial to commercial enterprises but not necessarily to the wider community? (The welfare of megacorporations is not synonymous with social welfare.) Why are there only freedoms to, not freedom from? Why freedom to extend the iron grip of economic reductionism, not freedom from phenomena like job insecurity and freedom from fear of losing the continuity of community? What’s wrong with economics as though people matter? The compression of human rights into four freedoms leads to a conflation of human rights with the neoliberal agenda. This is naive and dangerous. Let’s change the terms of the debate in Europe, not just chunter on as though “four freedoms” is an unquestionable assertion of fundamental moral principle. Time to reframe, surely.Tony BrauerJordans, Buckinghamshire • Before we teeter off the “hard Brexit” cliff edge (Real life has turned into a remake of The Italian Job, 20 October), it is surely worth considering the scope for a “third way” between the current free movement of labour policies followed within the EU and Theresa May’s preference for managed migration. One such option would involve an open work-and-study-permit arrangement that allowed free movement between the EU and the UK for students, and for any EU citizen with a firm offer of employment in the UK (and vice versa). This would prevent (or discourage) speculative migration, where people move from one country to another and then search for work on arrival. While it would therefore be likely to reduce flows of unskilled workers, it would not prevent employers from recruiting abroad for hard-to-fill jobs, in agriculture, or in the care and hospitality sectors. Such an arrangement could be characterised as demand-led free movement and, as such, could be acceptable to our negotiating partners. It would not give the government the control it currently appears to seek in respect of the total volume of inward migration. But by restricting the supply of unskilled or entry-level labour, it would address a major concern expressed during the referendum debate on the effect of EU free movement on wages for the lower-paid. Perhaps the basis for the type of sensible compromise that will need to be made by both parties to ensure not a hard or soft Brexit, but a good Brexit.Ian JonesFownhope, Herefordshire • As a remain voter in the EU referendum, I note with some disdain the way in which the EU leaders have dealt with Theresa May in recent days. Rather than treating her with dignity and magnanimity as a leader who is trying to do the best with the hand she has been given by the British people, she was treated like a petulant child who had misbehaved and now had to suffer (Sketch, 22 October). This and the collapsed trade deal with the Canadians (Frustration as Canada’s EU trade deal is blocked by Belgian region, 22 October) clearly reflects how weak the EU really is, and how impossible it will be for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with it. We should be under no illusions that they will negotiate on free movement or allow us not to pay into the EU’s central budget in order for us to continue to play a part in it. Britain, as a clever and able country, will indeed survive and no doubt thrive with trade tariffs if this is the price it has to pay for its vote on sovereignty and self-determination on immigration.Robert BradlowReigate, Surrey • It is with a great sense of trepidation I read that the chancellor, Philip Hammond – supposedly in favour of a softer Brexit – was “hopeful a deal was possible that allowed all European nationals to remain in the UK and UK nationals to stay in EU countries” (Hammond seeks to allay fears over Brexit, 20 October). I find it difficult to understand the statement as anything but “hard”, as someone who has lived in London for almost 40 years – during which time I have been working and paying taxes. I am now retired and, although entitled to a state pension, I expect I may soon be classed as a benefit “scrounger”, a “drain” on the NHS, or anything else derogatory that can be alleged about non-UK citizens – a “citizen of nowhere”, according to the prime minister. It is with enormous insecurity that I contemplate what the future may hold facing old age here.Eva WhittakerLondon • Global citizen Ian Jack wrestles with Theresa May’s claim that a citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere (Opinion, 15 October) but stops short of substituting “EU” for “world”. Just as a Frenchman living in Calais is utterly indifferent to the rise of the English underclass, so a Englishman living in Dover couldn’t care less about the alienated Maghrebis corralled into the banlieues of Paris. Self-proclaimed cosmopolitan Parisians and Londoners are likely to be no less indifferent. Giving priority to sorting out one’s own backyard doesn’t deserve the “little Englander” epithet.Yugo KovachWinterborne Houghton, Dorset • Your report (24 October) on the Civitas study which calculates that the rest of the EU will suffer more from the imposition of cross-Channel tariffs than the UK does not provide any background information on this body. Civitas grew out of the social affairs unit of the Institute of Economic Affairs. It shares a building, and some of its funding, with the Taxpayers’ Alliance (whose director is currently running Brexit Central), the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and other economically rightwing outfits. Guardian readers should not accept its calculations without critical examination, nor without critical awareness of what its starting point in this debate is.William WallaceLiberal Democrat, House of Lords |