Read on Twitter
I saw Keir Starmer speak this morning in Westminster.
In answer to a media question, he said that he would not only defend Freedom of Movement this year, but would propose to bring it back (ie in the 2024 election) if the Johnson govt removed it https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/keir-starmer-labour-should-argue-for-return-of-free-movement-brexit
In answer to a media question, he said that he would not only defend Freedom of Movement this year, but would propose to bring it back (ie in the 2024 election) if the Johnson govt removed it https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/31/keir-starmer-labour-should-argue-for-return-of-free-movement-brexit
I did get to ask him the question I've suggested that candidates defending FoM should also answer - see earlier thread below (but he gave me an answer to a somewhat different question on immigration policy instead) https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1217553117446799367
My Q: "You've spoken up for immigration & said that should involve keeping FoM with the EU after Brexit, separate from the policy for the rest of the world. For voters who expected Brexit to mean change on immigration, what can you say would be different to the last 15 years?"
Starmer focused on my mention of the rest of the world - so he noted that there would *also* be calls for changes to non-EU policy:
- eg, he'd rethink the family migration rules (income threshold)
- he didn't agree with net migration target; we need people paid below £30k, eg NHS
- eg, he'd rethink the family migration rules (income threshold)
- he didn't agree with net migration target; we need people paid below £30k, eg NHS
His reply speaks to party audience - if we're keeping Freedom of Movement, what are we doing about non-EU migration - by combining his pro-FoM stance with some liberalising proposals on non-EEA migration.
Important questions - but different to how to persuade sceptical voters
Important questions - but different to how to persuade sceptical voters
For leadership candidates proposing to keep FoM in 2020-21, I would suggest setting out some practical things that would handle local impacts - based on lessons from the experience of loss of public confidence, 2004-2016 https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1217559558006198272
I doubt Labour policy in 2024 will be to return to FoM, if its gone in 2021-22, but that is the Keir Starmer policy for this leadership contest. (I rather thought he might duck that - and say his 2020-21 priority was to scrutinise the govt, argue for the closest econ & FoM deal)
My earlier thread on why I expect all of the leadership candidates to converge on a 2020 defence of freedom of movement this Spring (but why the new leader may well revisit that, facing some challenges of bridging party and public, by 2022-3-4) https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1217542520894304261
My guess is Keir Starmer slightly misinterpreted the question I was asking (not that he deliberately pivoted). Some earlier content from his speech could also have been relevant to my Q [do more to deal with housing, conditions, but don't scapegoat migrants for domestic issues]
I think this challenge (to all 4 leadership candidates) remains https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1217565018721542146
Returning to FoM implies seeking EEA membership, or a bespoke similar model. An Association Agreement could also include reciprocal migration arrangements (either FoM or conceivably something else, probably quite narrow in scope) if mutually wanted https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1223217983016796160?s=19
