• ALTHOUGH he concedes that the case against the single market as a vehicle for wage disparities has “intuitive appeal”, Phil Laidler invites us to examine several pieces of EU legislation as evidence against this (There’s no left-wing case… Brexit is a right-wing thing, February 9).

It may be of interest to him that equal pay legislation originated from the struggle of women machinists at Ford Dagenham in 1968, not the EU.

However, I find it difficult to believe that he, or anyone, is naive enough to be unaware of the problems caused by the issue of imported agency workers toiling for rates of £2.50 an hour or less, often brought in explicitly to eradicate what employers see as the “problem” of union membership.

To cite one example (highlighted by the TUC), employers have circumvented EU equal pay rules via the “Swedish derogation” loophole. Other rights, such as parental leave and sick pay, are often denied to these workers.

As a pillar of the single market, the EU’s freedom of movement is designed to allow employers access to a wider workforce pool, to lower their costs – and hence wages.

It should come as no surprise that it was Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act to expedite the complete liberalisation of this market.

The debate we have seen developing on these pages over whether Brexit is inherently right-wing or left-wing somewhat misses the point – that the case for leave can be seen through either lens.

As I stated in my first correspondence, it is unfortunate that some see Brexit as inherently right-wing and racist because they have only been exposed to the Ukip-led argument, which relied on a campaign of blaming foreign workers for wage disparities, poor access to housing and other services. (They would rather the labour market opened up beyond the EU, to grant employers a “free for all”.)

Hence when those on the left voice scepticism regarding EU freedom of movement, those who only know of the right-wing case recoil, fearing that any mention of foreign workers must entail racism.

On the contrary, the left case for leave has always been clear that the objection is not to foreign workers being employed in this country, it is that they should be here on a decent rate equal to their British counterparts, protected by union-based collective bargaining – a fair wage for all.

Objections to freedom of movement causing toxic competition between workers is not an objection to immigration, and the two issues must not be obfuscated.

To be clear, I am under no illusions that Brexit will grant us a utopia of equality overnight; nor am I an evangelical Remainiac, as readers may have gathered.

My perspective is pragmatic – since Britain is now committed to leaving the EU, we should try to put aside the divisive bickering induced by the referendum and look at how we can build on the inevitability of Brexit. It may be a bumpy ride; but we have been through worse, so let’s accentuate the positive and move on.

DANIEL POWELL
N19