Friday, 23 May 2025

That was the reset that was

I’m not quite sure when ‘the reset’ became used as a noun to denote a definite moment within UK-EU relations. The notion of ‘resetting’ as a verb was certainly floating around before the election, but the first record I can find of it being as a noun was at the European Political Community Summit hosted in the UK last July. As for the reset being tied to a specific event, namely the UK-EU Summit that was held this week, that only began in February of this year, in the context of Keir Starmer’s attendance at a meeting with EU leaders at a defence and security summit, and the wider context of the dramatic re-arrival of Donald Trump in the White House.

I remarked at the time that it was unclear how realistic this timescale was, given the scope of things which would need to be agreed for the Summit to produce a reset worthy of the name. Now the UK-EU Summit has been held and, after all the speculation, we know the details of what has been agreed which are set out in the Joint Statement, the Renewed Agenda for Cooperation and the text of a political agreement for a Security and Defence Partnership, along with a Q&A document relating to these.

These have been widely reported, and there are several summaries, including from the BBC and Politico, as well as some excellent analyses including, from a legal perspective, that of Professor Steve Peers on his EU Law Analysis blog and, from a more political perspective, that of Anton Spisak of the Centre for European Reform on his personal Substack newsletter. Given that there is so much already written, I won’t provide another summary here. Instead, I will seek to evaluate what was agreed, taking in some but not all of the details, and how it relates to the wider Brexit saga.

Evaluating the reset Summit

In a recent post I set out some parameters which can be used for that evaluation:

“On one account, what will be announced will be a “new strategic partnership”, encompassing trade and security, and more or less explicitly configured as a response to Donald Trump. On another account, the accent will be on defence and security, with something more like a roadmap for discussion of economic issues, although some reports suggest an extension to the existing fisheries agreement will be announced. The first framing would suggest an explicit shift of geo-political strategy, the second a more ambiguous and less ambitious moment, defining future processes more than providing a statement of intent. Or, to put it another way, one would be a bold and dramatic event, the other a rather boring technocratic adjustment. The issue is not just a matter of symbolism, however. The detailed provisions will matter, not so much in terms of immediate agreements but in terms of the scale and scope of what is identified to be within the ambit of mutually desired agreements. Thus there is a matrix of possibilities according to whether the framing is dramatic and strategic, or dull and technocratic; and whether the scope of possible agreements is extensive or limited.”

Judged in these terms, the agreement falls somewhat between the two framings. The phrase “new strategic partnership” does feature centrally in the Joint Statement that followed the Summit. However, in content terms, what has been agreed is much more like the second framing. As expected, the central part of what was agreed was the Security and Defence Partnership (although there are many details to be worked out). That is important but not unexpected, and Anton Spisak points out that is not the bespoke “security package” Labour had originally sought but a fairly typical EU-third country partnership.

In the non-defence sphere, it was indeed true that there was an extension of the current fisheries agreement contained within the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which was due to be re-negotiated in 2026, through until 2038. There was also an agreement to extend the TCA energy provisions, which were due to expire in 2026, until 2027 and to do so on an annual basis thereafter. Since these were both consolidations of the existing agreement, they cannot be described in terms of a new strategic framing; indeed, they scarcely warrant the term ‘reset’. Nothing else within the non-defence sphere was definitively agreed, but a long list of possibilities and aspirations was identified.

In terms of the scale and scope of these, most of the things expected were mentioned. An extensive Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement seems to be the most definite, although (again as expected) details and timescale remain under negotiation. One thing which is now explicit is that the government will agree to dynamic alignment of SPS regulations, with a role for the ECJ. It’s true that everyone who knew anything about it knew that was going to happen (if there was to be an SPS agreement at all) but the government had never overtly recognized that. There is also a commitment to work towards a Youth Experience Scheme (meaning some version of a Youth Mobility Scheme), which was expected, but the mention of also working towards the UK participating in Erasmus+ was more surprising (given previous negative comments from the government).

Expected, but with less confidence, was a commitment to work towards linking Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) and Emission Trading Schemes (ETS), which has been discussed by commentators for some years but hadn’t featured very explicitly in Labour’s plans. Perhaps less expected, although the idea has certainly been floating around, was a commitment to explore the possibility of the UK participating in the EU’s internal electricity market. In all these areas, as with SPS, if there are agreements then they will entail dynamic alignment of regulations and a role for the ECJ.

The presence of the latter possible agreements takes the reset above the minimal level of what might have been contained (although they also grow out of possibilities contained within the TCA). But there was no mention of participation in the REACH chemicals regulation system  (something once touted as a possibility by Rachel Reeves) nor of accession to the PEM Convention on rules of origin (something called for by Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe). It is also of note that of the three specific goals for the reset which have been Labour’s stated aims since before the election, SPS is the only one which looks likely to come to fruition. The other two (mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and a mobility agreement for touring artists), which were always unlikely to be agreed, were mentioned but only in vague terms.

So, overall, in terms of the evaluative parameters I proposed, on the framing criterion, it was closer to the technocratic than the strategic, and was mostly a roadmap for discussion of possible agreements. In terms of the scale and scope of what that roadmap contained, it was towards the middle of what might reasonably have been expected, although it should again be stressed that it was minimal in terms of the announcement of actual agreements (as opposed to possible agreements). Moreover, there is a distinct lack of precise timescales or even defined processes for reaching these agreements and, as a result, very little sense of urgency. In that sense, whilst somewhere in the middle, it is closer to the minimal than the maximal end on the ‘scale and scope’ criterion.

A step forward?

If that seems rather underwhelming, it doesn’t mean that the reset was unimportant, for two reasons. One is that it does set in train ongoing negotiations, so that ‘resetting’ will continue. In a way, that was always going to happen, in the sense that the UK-EU relationship is bound to be the subject of ongoing negotiation, but what is distinctive about ‘resetting’ is that the direction of travel, even if very slow, is, for now, towards closer integration.

The other reason it matters is that a Tory government could never have hosted an event like this Summit. That is despite that fact that, at least under Sunak, the direction of travel was similar. That’s shown by the Windsor Framework, what ended up being the very limited scrapping of Retained EU Law, the agreement with Frontex, and the return to Horizon and Copernicus. But Sunak (or any other Tory leader) would have baulked at the concept of a reset and the symbolism and language of this Summit.

In this way, the reset is a step forward of sorts. Along with the different tone that has been evident since the election, it does mark a break with the highly antagonistic years since the referendum. It accepts, overtly, the reality that the EU is a regulatory hegemon, and in the process discards the Brexiters’ taboo against dynamic alignment. Similarly, it demonstrates a recognition of one of the basic flaws of Brexit, namely its failure to grasp the realities of geography. Assuming they happen, both the SPS agreement and the CBAM/ETS linkage will, in terms of the much-discussed choice between the EU and the US, be a choice for the EU.

But – and with Brexit there is always a ‘but’ – what is equally striking is that, as well as being relatively modest in framing and scope, the government has presented the reset in distinctly ‘Brexity’ terms. In particular, Starmer presented it, alongside the recent deals with the US and India, in terms of Britain being “an independent, sovereign nation” which “is back on the world stage”, whilst Reeves talked of the reset meaning that (again in conjunction with trade deals with other countries) Britain is in a better position on trade “than any other country in the world”.

No doubt, tactically, this is meant to spike the attacks on the reset made by Brexiters. In a similar way, the language of “ruthless pragmatism” that Nick Thomas-Symonds has been using for some time can be read as an attempt to position the Brexiter attacks as ‘ideological’ rather than practical. And, indeed, the other general way the reset has been presented by the government is in terms of the practical ways that it will make life better for British people.

Political reaction

All that is fair enough, in a tactical sense, but it doesn’t fundamentally challenge the validity of the Brexiter attacks, which have indeed been ferocious as well as wholly predictable. So, whilst Starmer spoke of the deal “releasing us from the tired arguments of the past” it has done no such thing.

Instead, once again, the airwaves have been full of the obnoxious, clichéd language of “surrender”, “betrayal”, and violation of “the will of the people”. And, once again, any semblance of honesty has disappeared (examples include claims that 80 million people will come to the UK under the Youth Experience Scheme, or that the UK would have had complete control of its fishing waters in 2026 - both made by Boris Johnson, amongst others). It has come from all the usual people (including not just Johnson, but Nigel Farage, David Frost, and Kemi Badenoch) and in all the usual places (including the Telegraph, Express, Mail, and GB News). And, just as in the past, they have set the agenda for the ‘non-partisan media’ such as the BBC, Sky, and ITV (yes, of course I know the questions that begs but, still, they are not partisan in the way of the Brexiter outlets I just mentioned).

It's tempting to think that this is just the last gasp of the Brexit dinosaurs, and that, as Adam Bienkov puts it, their “screaming” is so loud because they know “the public has changed its mind”. After all, 66% of the public support a closer relationship with the EU without rejoining it (or the single market or customs union), which is exactly Labour’s policy, and business groups are very positive. I’m not so sure, if only because public responses to questions about ‘a closer relationship’ may be quite fluid when that is re-presented as ‘betrayal’ and ‘surrender’ [1]. At all events, whether or not that is the reason, polling since the Summit shows only 29% think it is a good deal, and 23% think it is a bad deal (the largest group, 30%, don’t know).

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the policy, and one big problem is that, for all the government talk of the agreement making life better for ordinary people, it will be a long time before there is any tangible benefit. This, I think, has been an under-appreciated point in much of the media discussion this week, partly because the government focussed on having ‘done’ a deal and its opponents on it being a betrayal. But, to be ‘ruthlessly pragmatic’, the reality is that it will certainly be months, and very probably years, before it is both fully agreed and fully implemented.

For the SPS agreement, in particular, this means it will be a long time before businesses find trading easier (and for some it will be, or already is, too late) and before consumers see benefits in terms of price and choice. Meanwhile there will presumably be no further implementation of import controls (there are already reported plans to sell off border facilities), and so the heightened risks of dangerous or sub-standard goods entering Britain will continue. Moreover, SPS aside, even if all the possible agreements come to be made, they will each happen within their own timescales and come into operation piecemeal. Thus, in practical terms, the reset will not take place in a single moment, and will come long after public opinion of it as ‘an event’ has been established.

Brexiters are still shaping the debate

So, in that context, it really does matter how it is talked about now, and in the coming days, and the fact is that, so far, the Brexiters have shaped the main media ‘talking point’ of whether or not the reset was a ‘betrayal’. That has partly been facilitated by the fact that the only major definitive economic agreement of the Summit was the extension of the fisheries deal (negotiated by Frost and Johnson) for twelve years. This isn’t some terrible thing, not least because it gives fishers some certainty for planning and, anyway, they will benefit from an SPS agreement, when it comes. But whilst government ministers have tried to make those points, by having to do so they necessarily cede pivotal position to the ‘debate’ about betrayal, and have allowed the emotive and, for Brexiters, talismanic issue of fishing to be the pivotal policy area within that debate.

But even leaving aside the fisheries issue, the government’s approach has a more general problem. Responding to, or trying to pre-empt, the accusation of betrayal in terms of Britain’s world standing, or even its pragmatic interests, talks past the underlying meaning of that accusation. The first response accepts that betrayal of Brexit might, in principle, be possible, even if the reset is not, in fact, evidence of it. The second response implies that pragmatism can over-ride principles, leaving intact the possibility that a betrayal has occurred but justifying it on the grounds of practical exigencies.

Moreover, the way the Summit was talked about by the government remained primarily transactional and apprehended in terms of ‘tough negotiations’ which ‘went right down to the wire’. It is all very similar to the way the Brexit negotiations were presented and, for that matter, the way that relations with the EU were reported in the years when the UK was still a member state. And of course, as a result, it means that terms like ‘surrender’ continue to have currency, since they are the logically-entailed flip-side of the boasts of tough negotiations to ‘get the best deal for Britain’.

Stale, failed arguments

Yet the Brexiters really do not have a leg to stand on. Invocations of the ‘will of the people’, referencing the 2016 referendum, were always grotesque but are now utterly redundant. If it ever had any substance, the will of the people was satisfied when the UK left the EU, and any mandate the referendum had was fully and finally discharged at that point. It is simply dishonest to pretend that it provides some democratic hold over the form of UK-EU relations now and forever more. By contrast, Labour won the last election on its very limited reset policy, and has a mandate for that.

Beyond that, all the talk of betrayal and surrender is fatuous. Coming from Reform and some of the Tory Ultras that fatuity is obvious not least because they had already denounced the Johnson-Frost Brexit as a betrayal and a surrender. Just how often can something be betrayed before the accusation ceases to have any meaning at all?

Coming from Tories, like Badenoch, who formed the last government it is fatuous because they know full well that, when in power, they barely diverged from EU regulations at all, including SPS regulations, and so in practice Britain was already a ‘rule-taker’ (and, to be fair, Starmer made this point very clearly in the Commons debate). They also know that, as mentioned above, their own government was set on its own slow path towards closer relations with the EU. Now, out of government, they are free to join Farage et al. in all the old delusions of an undeliverable ‘true’ or ‘pure’ Brexit, including, on fisheries specifically, the false promise of complete control of fishing waters.

There won’t be another reset

Of course, all of this nonsense would be trotted out by the usual suspects whatever the Labour government did or said. This could be seen as a justification for the timidity of the reset, since it shows just how much vitriol even the most minimal changes attract. Some may argue that, given this is so, Labour might just as well be much bolder. That’s a reasonable argument if it means seeking the most maximal reset compatible with the Labour ‘red lines’. But if it means abandoning those red lines, that would be politically naïve. For doing that would provide the Brexiters with ‘a leg to stand on’, given how clearly and repeatedly Labour pledged to hold to them. And, yes, the next response would be to say that Labour was foolish to do so – but the reasons at the time were well-known and widely-discussed and, now, we are where we are.

In setting Labour’s red lines, Starmer accepted the basic parameters of the Conservatives' Brexit, but that doesn’t mean the Brexiters have accepted that acceptance, and the reality is that they never will. The reason for that is because actually, as has been obvious since 2016, the Brexiters will never accept any version of Brexit. Nothing will ever satisfy them, partly because what they want is not practically possible but mainly because they don’t want to be satisfied, they want to be outraged; and Brexit will always be a betrayal for them because they want to be betrayed.

From this perspective, this reset Summit reveals that Starmer’s approach to Brexit, whatever tactical rationale it may have, is strategically incoherent. It recognizes the geographical, economic and regulatory realities which doom Brexit to failure, and yet it places major constraints on what can be done to address them. Equally, it seeks to neutralize the attacks of Brexiters by accepting their basic parameters, and yet by doing so allows the basis for those attacks to flourish unchallenged. In this way, as foreshadowed at the end of last week’s post, the (naïve) possibility I expressed in the post before that, of the reset with the EU being used to reset the domestic politics of Brexit, has evaporated.

Much of this was already obvious. But once resetting relations with the EU became configured as ‘the reset’, and then tied to this week’s Summit, it became a specific ‘moment’ which would tell us, definitively, what Labour’s European policy will be. What is on (and not on) the agenda for UK-EU relations for the next few years will not, now, change. There will be more summits, and ‘resetting’ will continue, but, at least for the present government, there can only be one ‘reset’ moment. And now it’s over.

 

Note

[1] I think this reflects an underlying problem with many opinion polls about Brexit. Even after all these years when it has been such a huge issue, almost no one in the public (and fewer than might be expected in the media) actually understand even the most basic things about what membership and non-membership of the EU mean, right down to what a single market, let alone a customs union, means. As a result, public opinion is very easily manipulated by, and vulnerable to, political dishonesty (e.g. ‘closer relations’ can readily be rearticulated as ‘subjugation’), making opinion poll results rather unreliable.

Because of the Summit being held this week, this post comes only one week after my last one. Unless something unexpected happens, I will now revert to the usual fortnightly timetable i.e. the next post will be on Friday 6 June.

35 comments:

  1. Given the vitriol from ardent Brexiteers and their acolytes in the RW media, a series of boring technocratic adjustments s

    ReplyDelete
  2. My view is that Starmer is hyperconscious of how Brexit has fatally split the Conservatives, leading to their collapse and a real chance of the party becoming irrelevant for a long time, if not forever. He is also very conscious of the fact that very similar splits are also present in the Labour party, although perhaps to a lesser extent. For him the big risk is that Labour might follow the Conservatives in internecine warfare. This I think is what guides his words and actions and why he comes cross as hedging his bets - because that is exactly what he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Along with Labour's recent, painful memories of their post-2014 disaster in Scotland. Prior to that year, they dominated Westminster elections up here, then, the Scottish independence referendum happened. After the debate leading up to it deeply split their previous core vote, leading to tens of thousands of previous Labour voters voting Yes to Scottish independence, and then dumping Labour for the SNP (because the debate forced them to decide whether they saw themselves as Scottish or British) in subsequent elections, the realities of First-Past-The-Post resulted in Labour being brutally crushed by the SNP, especially in the 2015 general election when they lost 40 out of their previous 41 seats, causing them to crash from dominance to near-total irrelevance in one election. Now a full decade later, they have still not recovered.

      That experience has clearly, and brutally, exposed the huge dangers for UK political parties of a referendum debate leading to deep questions of identity among their voters, which can cause huge damage if those questions, which will be based on emotion, not facts, lead to those voters changing their political desires and allegiances afterwards.

      Labour, acutely aware of what might happen to them if Farage pulls off the same trick that the SNP did a decade ago - by campaigning in a way which tugs at people's emotions and their sense of identity, rather than being factual, to try and win-over Labour voters who voted Leave - are trying to avoid giving him an opening to do so.

      The SNP effectively wrapped themselves in the Scottish flag, and used naked nationalism to emotionally appeal to voters, Because they were the first insurgent party to successfully smash the two-party system anywhere in the UK, it would be very naïve to think that Farage has not learnt from them. He cannot be given an opportunity to run a similar campaign, or we could be facing a disaster in future elections.

      Delete
    2. The first insurgent nationalist party in the UK: how easily the neighbouring island is airbrushed from history and memory. What's it called again?

      Delete
    3. This is also arguably a consequence of the UK's undemocratic FPTP voting system. In a democratic system, if a Labour Party with 40% of the vote split into a Social Democratic Party with 25% and a Socialist Party with 15%, both wings could reasonably expect to be back in Parliament and aim to haggle for a coalition. The same if the split were Nativist/ Internationalist (where finding new names would be fun).

      Under FPTP, both wings would be booted into obscurity. And so the factions fight to control a technically "unified" party and dare not aim for political coherence.

      In my opinion, Brexit was fed by, and now feeds into, a wider slow-burning crisis of democracy and governance in the UK, which is neither fit for purpose in the 21st Century, nor capable of healing itself voluntarily, nor (yet) so catastrophic as to force an involuntary, erm, "re-set".

      Delete
    4. Yes : I agree with this.

      Delete
    5. I often wonder how this all would have turned out if the referendum on AV had gone the other way. Under that system, vote splitting isn't an issue because people can specify preferences. That would have changed the entire political landscape significantly. Parties wouldn't need to worry so much about shifting to more extreme parties because their preferences would still end up with the major parties.

      Delete
  3. The Brexit psychodrama and it's inherent contradictions should continue to be catalogued. Thanks Chris, I think you nailed it.
    Maybe it's time, though, to finally accept that Brexit, meaning the UK divorce, is permanent and potentially in perpetuity, difficult and all that is to face.
    Every time Britain makes a trade deal with non-EU countries, adds another nail in the Rejoiner coffin. When I say Rejoiner, I also include supporters of the CU and SM. Even deals, that have negligible effect on GDP, distances the UK from the EU a little more. Recent news about the UK's intention to cleave towards the US and the Tech Bros in relation to AI may ultimately be more significant.
    The EU reset confirms a few things. We know that the UK must align with Europe militarily as the US is slowly withdrawing from Europe and NATO. This will not be overturned by future US presidents. Starmer and Labour will continue to try to improve on the TCA, but will only do so at the margins. So what is this thing called the 'reset'?
    The reset fundamentally means that the UK Government will deal pragmatically but hesitantly with the EU over the coming years and into the longer term, always mindful of the dangers at home of overstepping and alienating members of their own party. They will deal with the EU like it does with other countries including India, China and the US with dignity and a degree of understanding. In other words, the visceral hatred of the EU and everything it stands for, is over as far as the Labour Party is concerned. That's the reset.
    The RW including the Tory Party and Reform haven't travelled that far yet, perhaps never, that's potentially the only real difference.
    The reset shows that the Labour Party have concluded that significant sections of the English electorate are now prepared to accept and live with the divorce and move on while others continue to flail around looking for someone or something to blame. Practically the reset may not amount to much but psychologically, maybe it's an important step. In all cases, the UK are out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Pat. I pretty much agree and in fact I think that that (i.e. “accept[ing] that Brexit, meaning the UK divorce, is permanent and potentially in perpetuity, difficult and all that is to face) is actually the whole basis of this blog. The first post, in September 2016, began:

      “This new blog will comment on the aftermath of the UK Referendum decision to leave the European Union. It starts from the position that this decision was a national catastrophe to which I was completely opposed, and that it was made on the basis of persistent, shameless lies from the Leave campaign which seriously mislead the British people. However, the blog will not attempt to re-argue the case for remaining in the EU or for the reversal of the decision, as I do not think that this is in prospect. Instead, I will analyse the unfolding consequences.”

      There was really only a brief period in 2019 when I thought there might be a 2nd referendum, and that might lead to a reversal.

      Equally, although this blog obviously has a POV, I write it to analyse/ comment, not to campaign or even to complain. That includes the issue of rejoining. I talk about its prospects, sometimes, or the idea of it or whatever, but its not the purpose of my writing. I also discuss, of course, Labour policy, and criticise it sometimes, but my purpose is to chronicle and to understand it, not to campaign for or against it. I’m not saying I am a neutral commentator, but, as regards this blog, I am an analyst not an activist.

      I notice that as time goes on – probably since the election of the Labour government, in fact - some readers (I’m certainly not, of course, suggesting that applies to you, Pat) don’t seem to understand this, and think I should just spend my whole time denouncing or supporting Labour policy, denouncing Brexit, advocating rejoining. But that is not what this blog is for, and if it was, it would never have attracted the scale of readership it has.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Chris, I think you, correctly, picked up on a small bit of introspection on my part. Reality is sometimes difficult for us to face.

      Delete
  4. The public have certainly decided that Brexit was a bad idea, but Reform, the party formed by the people who are most responsible, has shot ahead in the polls. Given that Labour's Winter Fuel Payment policy made people poorer and so turned voters against them, how is it that Reform are doing so well when their Brexit policy has caused such economic damage leading to higher prices and higher taxes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While Farage was influential to the referendum result, it is the Conservative Party who are responsible for Brexit, and their staggering decline can only be explained by Brexit.
      Also, just speaking to some younger potential Reform voters, they are less motivated by Brexit than other Reform ideas - eg taxation, public sector pensions, local government waste.

      Delete
  5. The Russian Reset of March 2009 has it's own Wikipedia page, complete with photo of Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov with a big red button.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, and it has been used in other political contexts, too. But I was wondering when, in relation to UK-EU relations, the terms 'reset' (as opposed to 'resetting') started being used.

      Delete
  6. I don't know him personally but there's a guy called Tony Stopyra who posts about Brexit in the Guardian and Facebook etc. He made the very astute point that what the Brexie Ultras really want is the destruction of the EU altogether - they couldn't achieve that through Brexit, paradoxically maybe actually strengthening the remaining 27 by showing what folly leaving was, but TS says that the Ultras' screaming of "betrayal" etc reflects their frustration that they cannot bring about the EU's downfall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can anybody explain or has anyone tried to explain the psychology of the Brexiter. Completely over the top responses to fairly basic trade negotiations. Responses and analysis that you would associate with your country being invaded by a foreign power. Words bandied about with ease like 'war', 'sovereignty', 'submission', 'surrender'.
    We all know that it's not about sovereignty as the Brexiter would happily trade away sovereignty with the US to get an extensive trade deal.
    It's been said that the Brexit process radicalised many. As if this offers an explanation! Now I can understand, without supporting them, how terrorist groups have become radicalised. That word is just not appropriate here and provides no explanation.
    What are the Brexiteers raging against, immigration, loss of empire or status, the economy and why is it all thrust on to the EU? Like what can possibly be so wrong about a project that came out of the horrors of war? Members of any and every club will seek to exclude non-members from the advantages of membership.
    Chris, I'm afraid to ask but who better to try and tackle this question or raise it for others to analyse.
    If it's not understood and explained then how can it be combatted? It's been named as Brexit Derangement Syndrome, but without any real investigation or proper diagnosis. It's time to fight back, they've gotten away with their nonsense, sorry insanity, for too long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of us ponder this point - and as yet no solution has been proferred. In simple terms..."we know what you are against - but what are you in favour of...what would a country that ran on terms that satisfied Brexies look and feel like?" That question has been posed for almost a decade. No detailed answer is yet forthcoming. What answers there are weave around buzz words like sovereignty and independence...but no one ever states what this tangibly means nor in what way nations like Germany and Italy lack it.

      Delete
    2. "Can anybody explain or has anyone tried to explain the psychology of the Brexiter."

      I think the post previous to yours nailed it (Anonymous24 May 2025 at 10:09: "Brexi[t] Ultras really want is the destruction of the EU altogether."

      Delete
    3. If that answers the 'what', and I'm not so sure it does, it doesn't answer the ' why'. 30% approx. of English voters still strongly support Brexit. They know it undermines the economy, I've explained that it's not really about sovereignty. Where is the evidence that the 30% who continue to support Brexit do so to destroy the EU? They must know that nobody in Europe is listening to them. Sorry, there is something else happening in the English psyche that needs interrogation. I'm sure it's complex and manifold. If Farage is to be taken on, I'm suggesting that a greater understanding is necessary.

      Delete
    4. Come on, you seriously doubt 30% of British people don't think in nationalistic, patriotic, sometimes prejudiced and racist, single minded, lifelong love of country that doesn't allow for the thoughts of 'foreign people'? It doesn't need interrogation, it is simply pride of birthplace, whether it's seen as right or wrong, it's there to behold. If you don't understand that now, when will you ever and how would you ever communicate your ideas and wishes to such people anyway?

      Delete
    5. Perhaps, Martin but still not convinced. The Faragists would support a closer relationship with the US than with the EU. How come all the patriotism and love of country disappears when it's the US?

      Delete
    6. Thanks Pat. Yes, there's a difference in dynamics somehow. I think the British- Usa relationship is fine, but no reason why British-European relationship shouldn't be as benevolent.

      Delete
  8. Meanwhile Switzerland makes more progress thand brexit reset . Whilst Switzerland is not a member of the EU, or even the EEA, (itself a result of referendums),it has a bilateral agreement with the EU called the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP), which grants reciprocal rights to EU citizens and Swiss nationals to live, work, and study in each other's territories.
    It is this deal which unlocks so much access for Switzerland to the EU single market, and why switzerland IS exceptional and entitled.
    The Starmer government can't even agree to allow a Youth Mobility Scheme with the EU (it has similar schemes with Taiwan, S Korea , HK and Uruguay).
    Unfortunately this means that the Brexit reset deal Starmer is crowing about is so limited, and is so difficult and slow to get anywhere in future. Freedom of movement is not connected to EU membership and referenda (UK and Ireland have freedom of movement) but no significant freedom of movement means the back door to the EU, EEA, customs union is firmly locked and bolted and even the British youths can't climb through the window.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite. If we were to accept Schengen membership it would be the single biggest change that would unlock the door to so much -- EEA membership for example. But unfortunately the brexiters, who often know so little of the EU, would understand that. But personally I think that is the prize we should aim for, as it will achieve so much.

      Brexiters don't like immigration but don't want to pay more in taxes to support British people being attracted to the rôles done by immigrants. They of course want their cake and to eat it, too.

      Our politics are filled with ignorance. As early as the 1980s (maybe before?) was the phrase 'demographic timebomb' used, meaning more and more old (unproductive) people being supported by proportionally fewer and fewer workers. And in recent years the bomb has been supercharged with falling fertility rates. But I never see this huge issue discussed anywhere.

      I'm at a loss as to understand what the solution is. Probably as now, just let things get worse and worse, let the old brexiters die off to reduce their power while the young grow older, waiting for this to change. I think the awful state of our country will continue for a while, although the change in the USA may yet be the filip needed to tip the scales.

      Very sad.

      Delete
    2. It may be unwise to assume that the coming generations will necessarily be less Brexity, and less conservative. Reform is showing significant gains in support among young voters, particularly young men, in line with evidence from other countries suggesting that young men are swinging behind populist parties.

      Delete
  9. Ultimately whilst the government of the day continues to run scared of the Brexity view of the world, nothing will change. All this reset does is deliver on the inevitable consequences of the 2016 vote and the 2020 Johnson agreement. In short, all that the Brexies wanted. Yet they remain - as always - hugely unhappy and noisily continue the politics of grievance. Appeasement of their fantasy view of the world will result in the UK staying in some kind of "we want closer ties with the 27, but we can't say it out loud" limbo until someone has the ability and desire to stand up and positively promulgate political and economic reality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Given that this is the most that Starmer/Labour felt they could sell to their own supporters in a Brexit so-called 'reset', then it is obvious that no Rejoin voters will bother voting Labour, except for local tactical reasons. This 'reset' was the scant minimum package that was worthy of a minor press release at a yackfest summit. From the EU perspective it is yet more confirmation that the UK is not to be trusted and should be dealt with only on a transactional arms length 3rd party basis, and always viewed as being the Trojan horse for US interests (that really aim to neuter the EU). The only 'moving on' goin on is that of industries shuttering in the UK, and committing their investments to the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was going to give you an update on how the reset has been viewed in Spain. Unfortunately, in the news I read anyway, it hasn't been reported on at all. So I can't tell you anything I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems to me that Brexit is a symptom of a bigger problem in the UK: every political debate gets immediately shifted away from talking about facts towards how their perception should be bc of spin doctor influence. Whether it's ULEZ, Insulating Britain, the ECHR, .... What could have been achieved by focussing on Insulating Britain instead of criminalizing the protestors. Perhaps the UK would now need lesser Winter Fuel support...

    On the other side: the EU should ask the public broadcasters of its members to cover both more European politics and politics of other EU members. I don't mean bootlicker coverage, I mean critical coverage. The lack of knowledge about the continent was a critical precondition for what followed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chris thank you for your assessment.

    As a Brexiteer ( there's a couple of us still about) I'm relatively sanguine at the supposed Reset - truth be told it's far more aspirational than it is on hard faces.
    Muchau made the following comment on the Single Market and why the UK is still a middling economy, viz: "..The single market was also meant to be for goods and services. But in reality, it is mostly for goods only. Services are the bigger part of the economy by far, yet the volume of intra-EU trade in services only accounts for 15% of GDP, while that of goods accounts for 50%. For the UK, a country whose main export is services, the single market was even more irrelevant than for the other EU members..."
    Only now are some economists working out that the SM was never as great a benefit to the UK as it was to say Germany or France.
    The one area that is detrimental to theUK is potentially joining the EU electricity andtyrs CBAM markets - we already pay the highest domestic rates in Europe and joining these will only increase electricity charges.

    The defence and security pact look's like a nin event - especially as we will only have Access to 1/3 of the loans available. Loans not capital.
    All in all Starmer will find it hard to fool all of the people all of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for typos - I was on my mobile at the time - I'm shocked I tell you - shocked 🫣

      Delete
    2. The single market in services is constantly expanding and evolving.

      For example the Bologna process leading to much more coherence in higher education and thus enabling the single market for related services.

      Newer service sectors like IT have essentially essentially been a single market.

      Older sectors are often governed by very different rules across the EU membership and need to find alignment first.

      Sometimes alignment comes in phases.
      I remember reading at some point many years ago that an agreement was reached which allowed lawyers to represent clients at civil court cases anywhere in the EU, however, at least at that time, there had not yet been enough alignment to enable the same for criminal courts.

      Which is quite understandable given how different each country's justice systems is, with lots of traditions, etc.

      Over all still much better than any service provision in bilateral or multilateral trade agreements.
      A very service oriented country, e.g. Ireland, would have a much harder time outside the single market.

      Delete
    3. Do you really consider that 15% of UK GDP, about £2.5 trillion, to be somehow not worth bothering about?
      Can the UK really afford to forgo the tax of between £110 billion and £150 billion?
      If so, I'd be prepared to take the £375 billion off your hands without charge.

      Delete
  14. On a very a important note. As a Palace fan have you stopped smiling yet?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that the so called “reset “ will have to broaden as we near the next election especially if the polls don’t close the current gap between Reform and Labour . The Lib Dem’s will probably want to campaign on a Rejoin vote but Labour could outflank and hoover up their vote by having already put in some serious spade work towards rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union !

    ReplyDelete