Skip to main content
The left should oppose Johnson's Internal Market Bill – but not for the reasons you might expect
The government's new Bill withdraws economic decision-making powers from devolved administrations just as they are set to escape EU 'competition' regulation, explains JOHN FOSTER

THE government’s new Bill, published this week, on the UK Internal Market represents a very significant challenge to the labour movement – though not in the way some have chosen to interpret it.

Yes, the Bill does up the ante with the EU negotiators. It asserts the rights of a British government over the UK internal market and rejects attempts by the EU to limit state aid and enforce EU competition terms within Britain. 

This stance may lead to the break-up of current negotiations with the EU. Or it may serve to focus them. Time will tell.  

However, the real long-term issue for the labour movement is quite different. It concerns the legal framework for industrial policy inside Britain after January 1 2021.  

The Bill explicitly withdraws powers delegated to legislatures in Scotland and Wales to provide financial aid to industry – for Scotland as long ago as the Scotland Act of 1998. And it similarly blocks any attempt to secure parallel powers for regional authorities in England.

Is this simply a temporary tactical move related to the EU negotiations? It does not appear so. It closely matches the new economic strategy being developed by Boris Johnson and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings which plans for a far more powerful and directive relationship being exercised centrally between government and big business.  

It is a strategy that results from the failure of the industrial policy enacted by Theresa May’s government in 2017, from the manifest chaos of the government’s attempts to use the private sector to tackle Covid and the political necessity of being seen to do something to level up development in the Tories’ new “red wall” seats in the north.

May’s 2017 industrial policy was meant to tackle Britain’s fatally low productivity and the lack of corporate investment in either labour or research and development. It offered a variety of financial incentives to lever in new investment. 

It failed dismally. Why? Largely as a result of the way big business is now owned – dominated by investment companies that need to maximise their own short-term income for competitive survival. Corporate profits were hijacked to pay for enlarged dividends and share buybacks – not investment. Hence stagnation and minimal growth.

That’s why Cummings and Johnson now look to the state to play a far more directive role. They want to use state aid centrally to direct British firms to invest in new technologies, artificial intelligence, communications and computerised design and production.  

Examples would be the decision to invest half a billion in One Web, the satellite operator and proposals to duplicate the US government’s Defence Advanced Research Agency.  

This week the guardian of neoliberalism itself, the Financial Times, was calling for government action to stop the headquarters of Arm, Britain’s only major chip maker, being moved out of the country.

It is for this reason that the government wants state aid to be focused at British level – to secure this new linkage between government and the biggest of big businesses.  

To that extent it is indeed rather like the EU’s own “competition” and state aid regime. This also benefits the biggest.

While the EU’s assertion of a “level playing field” and the denial of most types of state aid sounds “fair,” it is definitely not when the “players” themselves are massively different in size. The big firms in big countries flourish. Small firms in small countries go under. The ban on state aid boosts monopolisation.

It is why economic development across the EU has got steadily more uneven – resulting in periodic financial crises between debtor and creditor states and the subsequent imposition of “austerity” on the debtors.

The same will also apply to Johnson’s single market legislation and that’s why the trade union and labour movement should be lobbying against it – not because it’s “anti-EU” but because it’s copying it.

The reason trade unionists in Scotland campaigned so long for a Scottish Parliament was that it would enable them to do something about industrial decline, to stop closures and promote strategic investment. It was about jobs, decent wages and economic self-determination. 

These powers were secured in 1998 – but then quickly overridden by EU state aid rules. As Nicola Sturgeon put it when declining to intervene against the Rolls Royce closure at Inchinnan earlier this year, “we have to operate within state aid constraints.”

Today, in the midst of Covid, these powers are needed more than ever – not just in Scotland and Wales but across the de-industrialised regions of England, a country today scarred by Europe’s greatest geographical disparities in development.

These powers are not required “to subsidise failure,” as Tories have always claimed. It’s the reverse.   

It is in our regions and nations that there is the best chance of developing locally responsible, sustained and cumulative investment policies. This is because they would be far more democratically accountable and – in current political circumstances – more likely to involve a public-sector component that would tie down footloose capital.

Equally this is why Johnson’s plans are not likely to succeed – except in making the very rich richer. Centrally directed infrastructure projects to “level up” the Midlands and the north will do little or nothing to develop local pools of high technology expertise and locally controlled investment.  

£12 billion has just gone to a consortium of multinational firms to build HS2 – British, Australian, Swedish, French. The biggest, Balfour Beattie, is almost entirely owned by investment companies and the profits will go to the City of London, not to local communities.

Johnson’s new Bill will mean more of this. It may use government money to boost headline-grabbing developments. But it will not solve the productivity problem. The concentration of state aid powers at the centre means more of the same.

Trade unions across the country should therefore take a leaf out of Scotland’s book. Here unions and trades union councils are already backing a petition that has gone to the Scottish Parliament asking that it defend its existing 1998 powers. These powers are needed now – and, if they are not blocked by Johnson’s law, they will be free to use in just four months’ time once the EU bans are lifted on January 1 2021. 

John Foster is international secretary of the Communist Party.

The 95th Anniversary Appeal
Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
More from this author
Alex Salmond speaks at the SNP conference in Glasgow, Octobe
Features / 17 October 2024
17 October 2024
JOHN FOSTER examines how the late SNP leader shifted the party leftwards and upwards, bringing Scottish independence to the forefront while fundamentally failing to address deeper issues of class and corporate capture
Features / 2 December 2023
2 December 2023
Ahead of a TUC special Congress next weekend to fight Conservative anti-strike laws, JOHN FOSTER looks back to 1969 and 1972 when similar proposals were defeated through class solidarity and painstaking organising work
Jeremy Corbyn with Neil Findlay MSP during a rally at Glasgo
Book Review / 13 August 2023
13 August 2023
JOHN FOSTER recommends the down-to-earth realism of a political memoir that navigates the surreality of Scottish politics
The HMS Queen Elizabeth en route to make trouble in the Chin
Features / 14 August 2021
14 August 2021
JOHN FOSTER discusses the role of communists in responding to the aggressive militarisation initiated by the US in a world that faces an unprecedented period of acute crisis, as he introduces the international resolution for this autumn's Communist Party Congress
Similar stories
Features / 12 February 2025
12 February 2025
As a partial successor to the post-war Marshall Plan, USAid is not simply a humanitarian aid programme, but is involved in projecting US power as an instrument of foreign policy, argues NICK WRIGHT
Chinese-made BYD passenger battery electric vehicles and plu
Features / 12 November 2024
12 November 2024
New tariffs on Chinese electric cars protect European capitalists at European consumers’ and workers’ expense, writes BHABANI SHANKAR NAYAK, showing a continuation of neocolonial trade practices
France's President Emmanuel Macron gestures as he delivers a
Features / 10 October 2024
10 October 2024
The French president and the European Central Bank have identified ‘more of the same’ neoliberal agenda as the answer to the EU’s woes – but can post-Brexit Britain grasp the opportunity to reject continued austerity, asks NICK WRIGHT
European Union flags wave in the wind as pedestrians walk by
Features / 25 July 2024
25 July 2024
As Starmer hints at closer ties, MARTIN HALL warns of the dangers of creeping alignment and calls for a renewed socialist case for independence from Brussels, especially over the EU’s constraints on economic planning