During the more dramatic phases of the Brexit process, it was not unusual for some big development to occur just as I was finalizing my post for this blog. It happens less often now, but it did so last week, with two important announcements being made last Thursday, by which time I had largely written what became last Friday’s post, on Gibraltar and Brexit (since this was about a possible deal which hasn’t yet happened, it was a double fault on my part). The first announcement, which I only mentioned in passing in that post, was of further delay in the introduction of import controls on EU goods. The second, which I didn’t mention at all, was about the possibility of an EU-UK Youth Mobility Scheme.
Not taking back control
It’s actually not such a bad idea to have a gap between announcements and analysis, as ‘hot takes’ often miss important nuance. That applies to a degree to the Youth Mobility Scheme (YMS) issue, which I’ll come back to, but hardly at all to that of import controls. In the latter case, there is hardly a ‘hot take’ available, given that almost everything that could be said about it has been said on the five previous occasions controls have been postponed. Last time I discussed the issue, two weeks ago, when the common user charge was announced (about which, interesting new data and analysis of its likely costs was published this week by the UK Trade Policy Observatory), I said in a response to a comment on that post that the reason the checks were going ahead this time was that a further postponement “would be too ludicrous”. So that was yet another blunder on my part, and a particularly foolish one as I ought to know that nothing is too ludicrous when it comes to Brexit.
I don’t see much point in rehashing the reasons for this mess, which has its roots in the refusal by the government, and by Brexiters in general, to accept that such controls were the inevitable consequence of hard Brexit and, as such, have been in prospect since at least January 2017. Yet only in December 2020 did the government produce its policy paper on the ‘2025 UK Border Strategy’, having meanwhile refused to extend the transition period, thus creating a highly unrealistic timescale for a system that is heavily reliant on government IT procurement, as well as a new physical infrastructure (some of which has turned out to be unnecessary as government plans chopped and changed). There is, no doubt, a whole book to be written about the many mis-steps there have been along the way, and it is a reminder that the UK was not only totally unprepared for this very core aspect of Brexit, but is unable to afford it.
The only nuance to be added about this latest delay is to note that the government has now created an almost dizzying array of partial introductions and phasing-in of measures. Part of that was in-built from the start. Whereas the EU introduced full controls the day after the transition period ended, the UK version was not just later but always included, for example, the phasing of dates by which, first, new paperwork requirements were introduced and, then, physical checks, as well as there being different dates according to the risk categorization of the product in question. But, on top of that, further layers of complexity have gradually been added. Examples include the announcements in March of a delay until 2025 on checks on goods coming from Ireland and, in January, that the risk categorizations of various fruits and vegetables had been changed so as to come within the ambit of checks, but, in these cases, not until October.
This has made it easier for the government to pass off this latest delay as if it were no more than a further ‘technical’ change to risk categorizations, so that only the highest risk goods will have physical checks “turned on” at the end of this month (though the common user charge will begin, regardless of that). As a result, this delay has passed off more quietly than the previous ones, for few people, unless directly affected, can begin to understand, still less to be much agitated by, changes to what has become so byzantine a story. However, those who are affected most certainly are agitated by a system which, in the words of the Chair of the Small Business Federation (£), “is in complete disarray”.
Labouring the point
From a policy, or public administration, perspective, what has happened is a farce, and one which, politically, could have a major impact if, as it risks, there were to be a major outbreak of animal or even human health disease as the result of contaminated products being imported. However, for the moment, the main political talking point is whether this latest delay amounts to a political trap for an incoming Labour government, forcing it to be the one to introduce controls which are likely to create long queues and supply disruptions, as well as price increases and reduced consumer choice.
My own view is that it is more likely that, fearing such effects, the Conservatives’ intention is more about avoiding that happening before the election than laying a trap for Labour afterwards. That is because one of the few Brexit-related commitments Labour seem clear about is to seek a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU which, if made, would obviate the need for most of these controls. That would, however, entail Labour accepting ‘dynamic alignment’ (about which they have been coy) and, even though it is likely the EU will be agreeable, it will take time to negotiate. So it can’t be ruled out that Labour would need to introduce some additional, interim checks beyond whatever is in place by the time of the election.
It is a mark of this strange political period we are living through that there is much attention to what an incoming Labour government would do. It’s not just that, as I wrote recently, we are a country on hold. It’s that this has been going on for so long, and the opinion polls suggesting a huge Labour victory have proved so durable, that political commentators have virtually lost interest in speculating about the next election and are already talking more about the government that will follow or, even, the election which will follow that. In some cases, that next Labour government is already being written off as a failure, doomed to win only a “hollow victory”, to become immediately unpopular with the public, and to be internally “ungovernable” into the bargain. All these things may prove true, but such predictions seem rather premature when we are probably six months from an election that has still to be fought, let alone won.
No mobility please, we’re British
Nevertheless, speculation about what a future Labour government would do is perhaps the key aspect of the other of last Thursday’s news stories. This was what was unhelpfully and misleadingly reported as an offer from the EU to the UK of “free movement for young people” (meaning 18-30 year-olds). It was misleading, firstly, because it was not an ‘offer’ to the UK. It was a proposal and recommendation from the European Commission to the Council which, if accepted, would empower the Commission to launch negotiations with the UK. Secondly, as the detailed text makes clear, the proposal is not for ‘free movement’, even for this age group, but would have severe constraints including on length of time (probably four years) and location (movement would be confined to one EU country, rather than to the EU bloc), and several other restrictions.
The idea behind the proposal is not novel, in the sense that something like it was envisaged in the non-binding Political Declaration that accompanied the Withdrawal Agreement. That never got developed in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement talks because Johnson and Frost declined to do so, in line with their minimalist approach to the negotiations. That the EU should be making such a proposal at this particular moment is a matter of some speculation, but the Commission’s text includes under the heading ‘reasons for and objectives of the recommendation’ the words: “In the course of 2023, the United Kingdom approached several (but not all) Member States with the intention of negotiating arrangements on youth mobility, modelled upon the United Kingdom’s youth mobility visa scheme. This approach would result in differential treatment of Union nationals.”
Thus many well-informed commentators, including Anand Menon, have suggested, and I agree, that this suggests that a key motivation for the timing of the proposal was to fend off UK attempts to make bi-lateral agreements with EU member states, and, conversely, to preserve a union-wide approach to managing UK-EU post-Brexit relationships. This relates to a point I made in last week’s post, about how the UK has never really learned the lesson contained in the very first draft of the EU’s approach to the Brexit negotiations, namely that the bloc would act as a bloc. That failure doesn’t just show a continuing naivety about the EU. In the case of seeking bilateral youth mobility agreements, it also shows a maladroitness of diplomacy since those EU countries excluded from such approaches, and likely to resent that exclusion, are also likely to include some with which the UK is keen to have good relations for other purposes, such as defence or the control of irregular migration.
However that may be, the government immediately rejected the EU’s ‘proposal’ whilst repeating its preference for “country-by-country deals” with some EU members thereby displaying, at the least, a diplomatic tin ear and, at most, and in fact, its failure to learn that wider lesson. With equal alacrity, Labour stated that “it has ‘no plans for a youth mobility scheme’ if it wins the general election later this year” and that “it had already pledged ‘no return to the single market, customs union or free movement’ if it takes office.”
There was little to be surprised about in either reaction. The stranglehold the Brexiters have on the Tory Party needs no rehearsing, and the tedious assertion (£) of one commentator that this development meant that “the EU has finally admitted it needs Britain more than we need it” suggests that some parts of Brexitland still have the 2016 calendar on the wall. As for the Labour Party, as I noted recently, infuriating as many ‘remainers’ find it, there is simply no prospect of it making any fresh commitments about the EU before the election. However, the formulation of Labour having ‘no plans’ for a YMS is one which leaves a tiny amount of wriggle-room, whilst the reference to the freedom of movement ‘red line’ is, strictly speaking, irrelevant given that YMS is not freedom of movement. So it remains possible that they will become bolder on YMS and other EU matters after the election.
What is a certainty is that they won’t do so any earlier. Labour resemble a team in a three-legged egg and spoon race, with the egg being made by Faberge. They aren’t going to risk the tiniest spill by giving the Tories and the Brexit press an angle to attack them. That carries its own risks, even pre-election, as it might boost support for the LibDems, who favour a YMS. It also carries risks for post-election room for manoeuvre. But, like it or not, and agree with it or not, it is obvious that Labour have decided to take those risks.
Them and us
The political dynamics of the YMS proposal for Labour have led to much comment that the Commission’s timing was unhelpful to Starmer. Such comment is misguided, not just because, as discussed above, the timing had a different motivation, but because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about Brexit. However, I don’t think that misunderstanding is quite as presented by Menon, when he says that “some in the UK need to rid themselves of the idea that the EU are falling over themselves to get down to business with a new Government”.
I take that point to an extent – the EU’s approach to the UK will be driven by its own interests, not vague sentiment – but I also take the points made in response to it by Mujtaba Rahman of the Eurasia Group, another highly respected expert on UK-EU relations. Rahman thinks, rather as I do, that the geo-political context is now so different to that which obtained during the Brexit negotiations that quite significant developments in those relations are in both the EU’s and the UK’s interests, and are not just limited to security in its narrow sense.
Nevertheless, what continues to have definitively changed as a result of Brexit is that the EU no longer has any interest in tip-toeing around political sensibilities in the UK. There was a great deal of that when Britain was an EU member, just as there is for any member. Brexiters represent it as a weakness of the EU that it needs to accommodate the often-diverging priorities of its members (for example in trade negotiations), whilst simultaneously lambasting the EU for over-riding those priorities. But the reality is that the EU is a constant negotiation between these two poles.
In the UK’s case, its multiple opt-outs from core EU projects showed Brussels’ recognition of the constraints of British politics. That recognition continued even during the Brexit negotiations, but effectively ended once the Theresa May Withdrawal Agreement was finalised*, and the change was crystallised in one specific moment, in February 2019, when Donald Tusk made his ‘special circle of hell’ comment about those who had led the campaign for Brexit despite having no idea about how to deliver it. He did so knowing, but no longer caring, that, as Leo Varadkar warned, the British press would ‘have a field day’ with his remarks.
At all events, the point now is that, although Brexiters and the pro-Brexit media remain obsessed with the EU, the EU is no longer interested in them, and still less in placating them. That is not just a matter of indifference. Crucially, it is because, to the extent that there is indeed an EU interest in agreeing closer relations with the UK, that interest is only served by durable agreements with the UK state, rather than any that might be ‘slipped through’ by any particular UK government. In other words, if agreements were only possible through carefully-timed diplomacy that is sensitive to the domestic political constraints of such a government, then they would be inherently fragile.
So it isn’t just that the EU isn’t interested in placating UK domestic political divisions, it’s that its interests aren’t served by agreements which rest on it placating such divisions. That applies to the YMS, but, writ large, it applies to any and every agreement that might be reached, up to and including the UK re-joining the EU. The consequence is that any progress that a future Labour government might make in repairing the damage of Brexit will require it to build a sustainable domestic political consensus for that repair quite as much as it will require negotiation with the EU.
Us and them
It is clear we are a long way from such a consensus. Indeed, the two stories discussed in this post are amongst many examples of the way that Britain is incapable of facing up to Brexit. In the case of import controls, we literally shy away from the damage of enacting Brexit. In the case of YMS, we can’t give careful consideration to, let alone accept, even a quite modest reversal of the damage which enacting Brexit has done.
I’m sometimes told that it is only ‘people like you’ who are still going on about Brexit, and that no one except a few ‘remainiacs’ cares about it anymore. If that were true, the path ahead would be easy and quick, leading at the very least to a very much closer relationship with the EU. But the reality is that there are plenty of voters, and a very large segment of the political class and commentariat, who continue to care very deeply about Brexit and who have scarcely moved on from positions they held years ago. David Frost, writing with Robert Jenrick in the Telegraph this week (£), is a prime example, still chuntering on about the need to “defend” Brexit rather than treat it as “an embarrassing secret”, still holding out the myth of wonderful Brexit benefits that can be unleashed, and still – incredibly – trotting out the line that the Northern Ireland Protocol was only “temporary” and that the Windsor Framework should either be re-negotiated or unilaterally dropped. Meanwhile, for all that ‘remainiacs’ bemoan Starmer’s rather constipated timidity, Frost insists that even that would be enough for Labour to “undo” Brexit.
It would be nice, and in a better polity it would be accurate, to regard Frost as no more than a fringe figure, promoted well beyond his competence, and seeking to defend his own indefensible legacy. But he speaks for the now rampant Brexitism of the Tory Party, as shamefully displayed with the passing of the Rwanda Bill this week. The Rwanda policy comes from the same ideological maw as Brexit, exhibits the same preference for belief over reality (‘Rwanda is a safe country’) and the same fantasy that ‘sovereignty’ can make it so, shows the same indifference to international reputation, and will share the same fate of simply not being able to do what it promises it will do. The only sense in which it is not the embodiment of Brexitism is that the hardline Brexitists think it doesn’t go far enough.
It is this implacable Brexitism which, without representing the majority of the population, is powerful enough to hold the rest of the country to ransom. It is a large part of what prevents us from undertaking the kind of honest national self-assessment provided by an excellent new book by Financial Times’ journalist Michael Peel, What Everyone Knows about Britain (except the British). Of course, such an assessment, when undertaken collectively, is never going to yield unanimity – in a pluralist society, that’s impossible by definition – but we do need a broadly shared understanding of some key policy issues, most notably immigration, and of Britain’s place in the world. If there is such a thing as national political psychology, then we are in dire need of an intense course of psychotherapy.
Some may bridle at my use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ in all this. The fault, after all, lies with the Brexiters and Brexitists – with ‘them’, not ‘us’. It’s certainly highly tempting to think so, and I doubt I’m the only person to still have a “don’t blame me, I voted remain” mug lurking in the cupboard. But, as time goes by, I’m increasingly convinced that this is part of the problem that Brexit has bestowed, rather than part of any process of solution, and that conviction has been increased by reading Peel’s book. There’s a sense in which we have, collectively – through the kinds of political institutions and political discourse we have allowed to develop or persist – arrived at this point, whatever individual lack of culpability any one of us may, with some justice, feel we have.
I’m not sure where that thought leads (perhaps I’ll return to it in a future post). I don’t mean to absolve Brexiters for what they have done, and are still doing. But I suppose it implies the need for a greater recognition from those of us who oppose Brexit that what lies ahead is going to be a slow and arduous process of consensus-building as regards repairing the EU relationship, as well as of wider political reform. If Brexit teaches us anything, it is to be sceptical of quick, easy, and simple solutions to complex problems, and Brexit has bequeathed us a complex problem.
That said, the costs, both economic and non-economic, of Brexit are so high that we don’t have much time to play with. If consensus-building is the pre-condition of a solution, it won’t happen on its own but will require political leadership. Realistically, that can currently only come from a Labour government facing up to Brexit. So, whilst Labour’s extreme pre-election caution is clearly not going to change, the moment the election is won they must not delay in starting to provide such leadership. How likely is that? I don’t know, but it’s the best hope that we have.
Note
*It could be argued that it re-appeared at the moment that Varadkar and Johnson had their ‘walk in the park’ that led to the revised Northern Ireland Protocol. However, I think that was much more about Varadkar’s and Ireland’s interest in the island of Ireland than it was about trying to accommodate English Brexiters.
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Friday, 26 April 2024
Friday, 8 March 2024
A country on hold
Writing this weekly blog creates a certain rhythm, though the nature of it has changed over the years. In fact, in the early years it wasn’t always weekly, as I often wrote several short posts in some weeks. But it gradually settled into a weekly pattern of posting on a Friday morning, not necessarily rounding-up the week’s events but certainly based around them. As that happened, the length of posts also settled to being about 2000-3000 words each week. Occasionally they become even longer, but I try to keep to a 3000-word ceiling although it is often difficult to do so, and sometimes impossible.
For a long time, throughout most of 2017-2019, I more or less knew what the week ahead would bring in terms of particular scheduled parliamentary events, or negotiations with the EU. Of course the exact detail of what those events would bring could be highly unpredictable so that, often, the bulk of the post would be written in the small hours of Friday morning.
Since that period things have changed in that it is less common for there to be a predictable set of events, with the consequence that almost every Sunday and Monday I find myself thinking that there will be nothing to write about this week. Yet, invariably, and despite Brexit featuring less in the news than it did in previous years, there has always been plenty to say by Friday and the problem is just that of trying to find a coherent theme which isn’t simply a repeat of things I’ve already written, and which keeps close to my self-imposed word limit.
No news is bad news
All of this is a long-winded prelude to saying that this week, for the first time in over seven years, there is almost nothing new worth saying about Brexit. Of course there are, as always, a few news stories of note. In last Friday’s Financial Times (£) Valentina Romei, drawing on the latest ONS figures, reported that “UK goods trade has suffered its steepest five-year fall on record”, with Brexit at least one factor, and possibly a major factor. But it was hardly a huge surprise, any more than was the usual ‘yesbuttery’ from the usual suspects.
The most superficially plausible objection to Romei’s report is that the focus on UK goods trade ignores the far better post-Brexit performance in services trade, as discussed by Emily Fry, the Resolution Foundation's Senior Economist. However, as John Springford of the Centre for European Reform explains, “if the UK had remained an EU member, its services exports would probably have grown much faster”. Brexiters would no doubt huff and puff about the ‘probably’, but the basic fact remains that there’s no plausible reason to explain how three years of increased trade barriers with the UK’s biggest trade partner, and only very marginal, and very recent, reductions in (mainly goods) trade barriers with a couple of very small trading partners, could possibly mean anything other than less trade, including less services trade, being done than would otherwise have been the case.
To avoid this obvious fact, Brexiters go through all sorts of contortions, with Kemi Badenoch yesterday using the shop-soiled trick of claiming post-Brexit export growth by using figures without adjusting for inflation. It’s like someone who earns £30K a year saying that they are much better off than their granddad was because he only earned £25K when he was their age. It’s bad enough when it comes from some pseudonymous Twitter account, or some woeful Brexit-dogma website. But this was the Trade Secretary, giving a major speech the central point of which was the need for "realism, realism, realism" in discussions about trade! Inevitably it was picked up to be the front page of this morning’s Express, a screaming headline of Brexit’s success, based on a claim which bears as much relation to economic realism as potato printing does to fine art.
Relatedly, we have also learned this week that, on top of the recently announced ‘pause’ in the UK-Canada negotiations, an imminent UK-India Free Trade Agreement is looking increasingly unlikely. But that’s not surprising, either, and it makes little difference anyway. The entire idea that having a trade policy independent of the EU’s is of any value was always bogus. Even the now moribund idea of a UK-US trade deal, supposedly the great economic prize of Brexit, would make only a tiny dent in the costs of leaving the EU. In passing, it is almost forgotten now but, during the referendum, the then real possibility of an EU-US trade deal (TTIP) was regarded with horror by many Brexiters and touted by some as the main reason to leave (on the spurious grounds that it would have meant privatization of the NHS). It’s another small reminder of the contradictions, dishonesty and opportunism with which Brexit was sold.
Meanwhile, ‘Global Britain’ Brexit ideologue Daniel Hannan is reduced (£) to lauding Argentina’s Javier ‘El Loco’ Milei as an inspirational model for British economic policy. This, apparently, is what we could have had if only Liz Truss had been allowed free rein and, in fairness, that, at least, may be true. This one was especially striking because prior to the referendum one of the most perspicacious warnings about Brexit came from the Conservative commentator Garvan Walshe, in which he suggested that it would set Britain on a pathway of decline similar to that which Argentina took from its relative prosperity at the start of the twentieth century. In doing so, he noted that the country “suffers from a chronic political virus: with only brief interludes, it has since the 1930s been run by populists who maintain that the system is run for the elite, and against the people; that any experts are the system’s hired clerks, their wisdom corrupted by money; that the plain anger of the ordinary man isn’t just right, but righteous”. Now, Milei’s loony-tunes regime, which exemplifies such ‘anti-Establishment populism’, is proposed by Hannan as the template for post-Brexit Britain. At least it shows that one thing can be relied upon: if nothing else, there will always in any given week be one, and probably several, insane articles by Brexiters in the Telegraph.
Other than that, the sorry saga about import control introduction also continues to limp on, this week with the news that physical checks on goods moving from Ireland to Wales are unlikely to begin before spring of 2025. This is a delay within a delay in that, as is well-known, controls on imports from the EU have been delayed five times, and are only this year being implemented in full, with the physical checks aspect due to begin at the end of April. However, goods from Ireland (which mainly route through Welsh ports, especially Holyhead), were already exempted from that date, and checks were due to begin in October 2024. It is that latter date which now looks set to slip.
That these checks serve important purposes is something I’ve written about before, with one of them being to reduce the risk of contaminated foodstuffs entering the country. Without reprising the detail, this risk is increased by Brexit not because EU goods have ‘suddenly become dangerous’ (as Brexiters invariably sneer when these risks are mentioned) but because the UK no longer has full access to the EU databases that help to track criminal and accidental dangers, and relies on a rather patchy, understaffed and underfunded system of its own. The importance of this increased risk is shown by this week’s reports of soaring hospital admissions for food poisoning, some of which is attributable to Brexit.
Exactly how much is down to Brexit is difficult, probably impossible, to know. There are certainly cases, such as a major salmonella outbreak last year linked to Polish poultry, where EU imports are to blame. But of course it cannot be proved definitively that this would not have happened without Brexit, for the simple reason that the risks were not, and never could be, completely eliminated by EU membership and nor can they be by import checks. The point is that, in the absence of EU membership and of import controls, these risks are increased, in principle, and so it is hardly unreasonable to think that the observed increase of cases, in practice, is linked to this. It is just one of many ways in which, with almost no public recognition of the reason, Brexit makes our lives a little bit worse, contributing to an aggregate which degrades our overall quality of life, with everything becoming more grubby and more ramshackle as the damage accumulates.
Waiting for god knows what
So, yes, there is some Brexit news, as always. But the reality is that the entire British polity is now on hold, waiting for an election with an almost palpable impatience. Even Tory MPs, leaving aside the many, currently numbering sixty-two, who have announced they won’t be standing again, seem to be gagging for the orgy of blood-letting that will follow. We have a rotting, maggoty sack of a government which is clearly bereft of any kind of policy agenda whatsoever, and certainly of any Brexit agenda. It's true that many of its backbenchers still harbour fantasies of massive regulatory divergence, but the government knows that they are totally impractical and would be heavily resisted by business organizations.
In fact, this government has no purpose at all other than to cling on to the trappings of power, and persists simply in the hope that the opinion polls may improve if it does so for long enough, a hope which rests primarily not upon anything which it may do, but upon the Labour Party committing some kind of massive error. Conversely, this means that the Labour Party are now animated solely by the desire to ensure that they commit no such error before the election. As regards Brexit, that means saying as little as possible, and promising as little as possible.
Notably, in the main political and economic event of the week, the Budget, Brexit was not mentioned once in either Jeremy Hunt’s speech or Keir Starmer’s response (even though the OBR forecasts that accompanied it stuck to their estimate that the evidence continues to support their original calculation that GDP will be 4% lower in the long-term than it would otherwise have been). If this silence persists – and, frankly, there’s no doubt that it will – then the Tories will go into the election saying almost nothing about Brexit, their defining policy since 2016 and their flagship policy at the last election, for the simple reason there is nothing to boast about and the people who still support it mostly think that the government made a mess of it. And Labour will do the same due to the (not unreasonable) fear that to do otherwise might give the Tories a chance to re-group around a ‘save Brexit’ slogan, perhaps even to the extent of spiking the cannibalization of their vote by the Reform Party.
That we have arrived at this situation is actually quite remarkable, and the more so since, as I recorded at the time, the details of Brexit barely featured in either the 2017 election or the 2019 election. So this great ‘national liberation’, this economic and geo-political reset will, once again, and despite all we now know about its consequences, be left as something virtually undiscussed, in substantive terms, since the short and stupid referendum campaign of 2016.
Labour in power?
Assuming Labour win the election, whenever it comes, it’s at least possible that Brexit, or, rather, the UK’s relationship with the EU will become discussable again. That’s partly for the reasons of security and defence which I’ve discussed in recent posts, as these are the areas where the Labour leadership is already indicating it is keen to deepen the relationship. But the economic issues won’t go away. It’s difficult to exaggerate the scale of the mess Labour are going to inherit, not least because, to the extent that the current government has any policy at all, it is to deliberately ensure that the mess be as bad as possible.
The political comparisons with the 1997 election may have some validity, but the economic outlook will be totally different, and more like that (or those) of 1974, in the era of stagflation. The elections that year, it bears recalling, occurred when the Tories had just implemented a European policy about which the Labour Party was deeply split, and entertained reversing by holding the 1975 referendum. I’m not suggesting that is a direct parallel, but Labour will have to fix the economy they inherit, and especially its impact on public services, and do so very quickly if they are to avoid voter disillusionment. For such disillusionment is likely to set in rapidly given that the main thing propelling Starmer to power is disaffection with the Tories rather than enthusiasm for Labour.
That will make the ongoing negative impact of Brexit more difficult to avoid than it has been in Opposition. The 4% drag anchor on growth that the OBR estimate (and other credible estimates are even higher) is a big elephant to ignore, especially given Starmer’s pledge to make the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Attention will quickly focus on what, realistically, might be achieved via the 2026 review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), with some recent signs that, from an EU perspective, there may be more scope than was once thought. That isn’t altogether unrelated to the security situation and certainly isn’t unrelated to whatever the outcome of the US Presidential election turns out to be.
But even the most maximal refinements possible within the TCA framework won’t do much for economic growth. This week the former MEP Andrew Duff has published a detailed, gradual plan for a bolder approach that Labour could take, and, for all the red lines that Starmer has drawn, it’s not hard to see this plan, or something like it, gaining a lot of support within his party, much of which is far less reconciled to Brexit than is its leadership. Even Duff’s first step, a UK-EU customs treaty, would have a strong economic rationale in terms of reducing some border frictions, and therefore compliance costs. Brexiters would screech about the loss of an ‘independent trade policy’ (even though the loss would be purely symbolic), but they will do that about anything Labour do, no matter how unambitious, that they could portray as a ‘betrayal of Brexit’ (as Suella Braverman already started to do during the Budget debate).
How loud would those screeches be, and how much political cut-through would they have? There are two, related, factors here. One is that it shouldn’t be under-estimated how much a change of government will change the dynamics of the right-wing media, which will become more compliant and much less influential overnight, as will the numerous thinktanks that have thrived on Tory patronage. That would be especially true if there was a huge wipe-out of the Tories. The scale of their defeat, and of a Labour victory, is the second factor. Whatever its size, the Tories look set to fall into vicious in-fighting which will consume most of their energy. And if it is as large as the largest current predictions, Labour’s freedom of action would be very considerable, at least initially. The question, however, remains the extent to which they would use it.
There is also, as ever, the question of whether the EU would enter into a significant change in the relationship. It can’t be assumed that even a total Tory meltdown would, in and of itself, make much difference to this. After all, the much-cited parallel of the 1993 Canadian election, which saw the near-extinction of the Progressive Conservative Party, ultimately led to a realignment of the right which brought the populist Stephen Harper to power in 2006.
The death row government
All of this is for the future. For now, Sunak will hold on, conceivably only until May but more likely until the autumn, especially as this week’s budget doesn’t seem to have ‘landed’ especially well. That means it is quite likely that we will have to endure another ‘fiscal event’, as well as whatever other nonsense they come up with, before the election. It’s a ludicrous and abhorrent situation, for all sorts of reasons, not limited to Brexit; the political equivalent of those ghastly death row stories where, long-ago convicted of some squalidly bestial crime, the inmate rots for years waiting to be strapped into the electric chair.
But, as the cliché has it, ‘we are where we are’. There will probably be many more weeks to come when there is little to say about politics, and even less about Brexit other than to record the endless drip of damage it is doing, and the endless drip of evidence that the promises made for it were false.
For a long time, throughout most of 2017-2019, I more or less knew what the week ahead would bring in terms of particular scheduled parliamentary events, or negotiations with the EU. Of course the exact detail of what those events would bring could be highly unpredictable so that, often, the bulk of the post would be written in the small hours of Friday morning.
Since that period things have changed in that it is less common for there to be a predictable set of events, with the consequence that almost every Sunday and Monday I find myself thinking that there will be nothing to write about this week. Yet, invariably, and despite Brexit featuring less in the news than it did in previous years, there has always been plenty to say by Friday and the problem is just that of trying to find a coherent theme which isn’t simply a repeat of things I’ve already written, and which keeps close to my self-imposed word limit.
No news is bad news
All of this is a long-winded prelude to saying that this week, for the first time in over seven years, there is almost nothing new worth saying about Brexit. Of course there are, as always, a few news stories of note. In last Friday’s Financial Times (£) Valentina Romei, drawing on the latest ONS figures, reported that “UK goods trade has suffered its steepest five-year fall on record”, with Brexit at least one factor, and possibly a major factor. But it was hardly a huge surprise, any more than was the usual ‘yesbuttery’ from the usual suspects.
The most superficially plausible objection to Romei’s report is that the focus on UK goods trade ignores the far better post-Brexit performance in services trade, as discussed by Emily Fry, the Resolution Foundation's Senior Economist. However, as John Springford of the Centre for European Reform explains, “if the UK had remained an EU member, its services exports would probably have grown much faster”. Brexiters would no doubt huff and puff about the ‘probably’, but the basic fact remains that there’s no plausible reason to explain how three years of increased trade barriers with the UK’s biggest trade partner, and only very marginal, and very recent, reductions in (mainly goods) trade barriers with a couple of very small trading partners, could possibly mean anything other than less trade, including less services trade, being done than would otherwise have been the case.
To avoid this obvious fact, Brexiters go through all sorts of contortions, with Kemi Badenoch yesterday using the shop-soiled trick of claiming post-Brexit export growth by using figures without adjusting for inflation. It’s like someone who earns £30K a year saying that they are much better off than their granddad was because he only earned £25K when he was their age. It’s bad enough when it comes from some pseudonymous Twitter account, or some woeful Brexit-dogma website. But this was the Trade Secretary, giving a major speech the central point of which was the need for "realism, realism, realism" in discussions about trade! Inevitably it was picked up to be the front page of this morning’s Express, a screaming headline of Brexit’s success, based on a claim which bears as much relation to economic realism as potato printing does to fine art.
Relatedly, we have also learned this week that, on top of the recently announced ‘pause’ in the UK-Canada negotiations, an imminent UK-India Free Trade Agreement is looking increasingly unlikely. But that’s not surprising, either, and it makes little difference anyway. The entire idea that having a trade policy independent of the EU’s is of any value was always bogus. Even the now moribund idea of a UK-US trade deal, supposedly the great economic prize of Brexit, would make only a tiny dent in the costs of leaving the EU. In passing, it is almost forgotten now but, during the referendum, the then real possibility of an EU-US trade deal (TTIP) was regarded with horror by many Brexiters and touted by some as the main reason to leave (on the spurious grounds that it would have meant privatization of the NHS). It’s another small reminder of the contradictions, dishonesty and opportunism with which Brexit was sold.
Meanwhile, ‘Global Britain’ Brexit ideologue Daniel Hannan is reduced (£) to lauding Argentina’s Javier ‘El Loco’ Milei as an inspirational model for British economic policy. This, apparently, is what we could have had if only Liz Truss had been allowed free rein and, in fairness, that, at least, may be true. This one was especially striking because prior to the referendum one of the most perspicacious warnings about Brexit came from the Conservative commentator Garvan Walshe, in which he suggested that it would set Britain on a pathway of decline similar to that which Argentina took from its relative prosperity at the start of the twentieth century. In doing so, he noted that the country “suffers from a chronic political virus: with only brief interludes, it has since the 1930s been run by populists who maintain that the system is run for the elite, and against the people; that any experts are the system’s hired clerks, their wisdom corrupted by money; that the plain anger of the ordinary man isn’t just right, but righteous”. Now, Milei’s loony-tunes regime, which exemplifies such ‘anti-Establishment populism’, is proposed by Hannan as the template for post-Brexit Britain. At least it shows that one thing can be relied upon: if nothing else, there will always in any given week be one, and probably several, insane articles by Brexiters in the Telegraph.
Other than that, the sorry saga about import control introduction also continues to limp on, this week with the news that physical checks on goods moving from Ireland to Wales are unlikely to begin before spring of 2025. This is a delay within a delay in that, as is well-known, controls on imports from the EU have been delayed five times, and are only this year being implemented in full, with the physical checks aspect due to begin at the end of April. However, goods from Ireland (which mainly route through Welsh ports, especially Holyhead), were already exempted from that date, and checks were due to begin in October 2024. It is that latter date which now looks set to slip.
That these checks serve important purposes is something I’ve written about before, with one of them being to reduce the risk of contaminated foodstuffs entering the country. Without reprising the detail, this risk is increased by Brexit not because EU goods have ‘suddenly become dangerous’ (as Brexiters invariably sneer when these risks are mentioned) but because the UK no longer has full access to the EU databases that help to track criminal and accidental dangers, and relies on a rather patchy, understaffed and underfunded system of its own. The importance of this increased risk is shown by this week’s reports of soaring hospital admissions for food poisoning, some of which is attributable to Brexit.
Exactly how much is down to Brexit is difficult, probably impossible, to know. There are certainly cases, such as a major salmonella outbreak last year linked to Polish poultry, where EU imports are to blame. But of course it cannot be proved definitively that this would not have happened without Brexit, for the simple reason that the risks were not, and never could be, completely eliminated by EU membership and nor can they be by import checks. The point is that, in the absence of EU membership and of import controls, these risks are increased, in principle, and so it is hardly unreasonable to think that the observed increase of cases, in practice, is linked to this. It is just one of many ways in which, with almost no public recognition of the reason, Brexit makes our lives a little bit worse, contributing to an aggregate which degrades our overall quality of life, with everything becoming more grubby and more ramshackle as the damage accumulates.
Waiting for god knows what
So, yes, there is some Brexit news, as always. But the reality is that the entire British polity is now on hold, waiting for an election with an almost palpable impatience. Even Tory MPs, leaving aside the many, currently numbering sixty-two, who have announced they won’t be standing again, seem to be gagging for the orgy of blood-letting that will follow. We have a rotting, maggoty sack of a government which is clearly bereft of any kind of policy agenda whatsoever, and certainly of any Brexit agenda. It's true that many of its backbenchers still harbour fantasies of massive regulatory divergence, but the government knows that they are totally impractical and would be heavily resisted by business organizations.
In fact, this government has no purpose at all other than to cling on to the trappings of power, and persists simply in the hope that the opinion polls may improve if it does so for long enough, a hope which rests primarily not upon anything which it may do, but upon the Labour Party committing some kind of massive error. Conversely, this means that the Labour Party are now animated solely by the desire to ensure that they commit no such error before the election. As regards Brexit, that means saying as little as possible, and promising as little as possible.
Notably, in the main political and economic event of the week, the Budget, Brexit was not mentioned once in either Jeremy Hunt’s speech or Keir Starmer’s response (even though the OBR forecasts that accompanied it stuck to their estimate that the evidence continues to support their original calculation that GDP will be 4% lower in the long-term than it would otherwise have been). If this silence persists – and, frankly, there’s no doubt that it will – then the Tories will go into the election saying almost nothing about Brexit, their defining policy since 2016 and their flagship policy at the last election, for the simple reason there is nothing to boast about and the people who still support it mostly think that the government made a mess of it. And Labour will do the same due to the (not unreasonable) fear that to do otherwise might give the Tories a chance to re-group around a ‘save Brexit’ slogan, perhaps even to the extent of spiking the cannibalization of their vote by the Reform Party.
That we have arrived at this situation is actually quite remarkable, and the more so since, as I recorded at the time, the details of Brexit barely featured in either the 2017 election or the 2019 election. So this great ‘national liberation’, this economic and geo-political reset will, once again, and despite all we now know about its consequences, be left as something virtually undiscussed, in substantive terms, since the short and stupid referendum campaign of 2016.
Labour in power?
Assuming Labour win the election, whenever it comes, it’s at least possible that Brexit, or, rather, the UK’s relationship with the EU will become discussable again. That’s partly for the reasons of security and defence which I’ve discussed in recent posts, as these are the areas where the Labour leadership is already indicating it is keen to deepen the relationship. But the economic issues won’t go away. It’s difficult to exaggerate the scale of the mess Labour are going to inherit, not least because, to the extent that the current government has any policy at all, it is to deliberately ensure that the mess be as bad as possible.
The political comparisons with the 1997 election may have some validity, but the economic outlook will be totally different, and more like that (or those) of 1974, in the era of stagflation. The elections that year, it bears recalling, occurred when the Tories had just implemented a European policy about which the Labour Party was deeply split, and entertained reversing by holding the 1975 referendum. I’m not suggesting that is a direct parallel, but Labour will have to fix the economy they inherit, and especially its impact on public services, and do so very quickly if they are to avoid voter disillusionment. For such disillusionment is likely to set in rapidly given that the main thing propelling Starmer to power is disaffection with the Tories rather than enthusiasm for Labour.
That will make the ongoing negative impact of Brexit more difficult to avoid than it has been in Opposition. The 4% drag anchor on growth that the OBR estimate (and other credible estimates are even higher) is a big elephant to ignore, especially given Starmer’s pledge to make the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Attention will quickly focus on what, realistically, might be achieved via the 2026 review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), with some recent signs that, from an EU perspective, there may be more scope than was once thought. That isn’t altogether unrelated to the security situation and certainly isn’t unrelated to whatever the outcome of the US Presidential election turns out to be.
But even the most maximal refinements possible within the TCA framework won’t do much for economic growth. This week the former MEP Andrew Duff has published a detailed, gradual plan for a bolder approach that Labour could take, and, for all the red lines that Starmer has drawn, it’s not hard to see this plan, or something like it, gaining a lot of support within his party, much of which is far less reconciled to Brexit than is its leadership. Even Duff’s first step, a UK-EU customs treaty, would have a strong economic rationale in terms of reducing some border frictions, and therefore compliance costs. Brexiters would screech about the loss of an ‘independent trade policy’ (even though the loss would be purely symbolic), but they will do that about anything Labour do, no matter how unambitious, that they could portray as a ‘betrayal of Brexit’ (as Suella Braverman already started to do during the Budget debate).
How loud would those screeches be, and how much political cut-through would they have? There are two, related, factors here. One is that it shouldn’t be under-estimated how much a change of government will change the dynamics of the right-wing media, which will become more compliant and much less influential overnight, as will the numerous thinktanks that have thrived on Tory patronage. That would be especially true if there was a huge wipe-out of the Tories. The scale of their defeat, and of a Labour victory, is the second factor. Whatever its size, the Tories look set to fall into vicious in-fighting which will consume most of their energy. And if it is as large as the largest current predictions, Labour’s freedom of action would be very considerable, at least initially. The question, however, remains the extent to which they would use it.
There is also, as ever, the question of whether the EU would enter into a significant change in the relationship. It can’t be assumed that even a total Tory meltdown would, in and of itself, make much difference to this. After all, the much-cited parallel of the 1993 Canadian election, which saw the near-extinction of the Progressive Conservative Party, ultimately led to a realignment of the right which brought the populist Stephen Harper to power in 2006.
The death row government
All of this is for the future. For now, Sunak will hold on, conceivably only until May but more likely until the autumn, especially as this week’s budget doesn’t seem to have ‘landed’ especially well. That means it is quite likely that we will have to endure another ‘fiscal event’, as well as whatever other nonsense they come up with, before the election. It’s a ludicrous and abhorrent situation, for all sorts of reasons, not limited to Brexit; the political equivalent of those ghastly death row stories where, long-ago convicted of some squalidly bestial crime, the inmate rots for years waiting to be strapped into the electric chair.
But, as the cliché has it, ‘we are where we are’. There will probably be many more weeks to come when there is little to say about politics, and even less about Brexit other than to record the endless drip of damage it is doing, and the endless drip of evidence that the promises made for it were false.
Friday, 1 December 2023
Should Labour be bolder about Brexit?
One of the benefits of having re-enabled comments on this blog, to me at least, is to be able to see what issues get flagged up by readers as interesting or debatable. Last week’s post was mainly about the government’s Autumn Statement, but many of the comments focused on my far briefer observations about Labour’s post-Brexit policy. I have written about that at length in the past, but it is clearly an issue which is becoming more pressing as the next election gets closer, with some recent well-informed speculation (though that is all it is) that it could be as early as May 2024. And, of course, recent and current opinion polls suggest that Labour will win, which also adds salience to the question of how they would approach the UK-EU relationship in government.
Curtice’s analysis of the Labour vote
This issue has also been getting fresh attention because of recent remarks by the eminent polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice about the structure of current voter support for Labour. He suggests, in quite forceful terms, that “Labour’s presumption that they couldn’t get into an election winning position without fundamentally changing the character of their support vis à vis Brexit has been demonstrated to be false”. He makes three key points to explain and justify that. First, that those 2016 leave voters whose support Labour have gained since the 2019 election are atypical leave voters in that they tend to be those who now support re-joining the EU. Second, in line with general shifts against support for Brexit, those people who did vote Labour in 2019 are even more likely to be opposed to Brexit now than they were then. And, third, new voters, who were too young to vote in 2016 and/or 2019 are overwhelming pro-Labour and anti-Brexit.
The implication of this might be (I am not sure that Curtice has said this in terms, but it is certainly the conclusion that many are drawing from what he said) that Labour could have adopted, and could still adopt, a more strongly anti-Brexit position without threatening its chances of winning the election. That would, presumably, mean adopting a policy of seeking to re-join the EU or, at least, the single market (and/or entering into a comprehensive customs union with the EU). On Curtice’s analysis, such a policy would go with the grain of most of those intending to vote Labour. It would also (this is my view, not what Curtice said) be a far more credible economic policy because of the now strong evidence, discussed in my previous post, of the damage Brexit has done, and will continue to do, to growth and investment.
Economics and honesty
The economic argument appears to me to be unassailable, and as I observed last week it is quite dishonest for Labour to suggest that any changes that could realistically be made to the existing Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) would make much economic difference. Labour’s proposals shouldn’t be entirely dismissed, though, as they will smooth some of the roughest edges of what Frost and Johnson agreed. There is also some validity in Labour’s argument that, from the perspective of investment, there is a value simply in providing stability and consistency. That was the message from business (£) at this week’s ‘global investment summit’, and Labour’s commitment to maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU speaks to that. There is also value in possible improvement to security cooperation, and in a general improvement in the tone of relations with the EU. But the benefits of what can be done within the TCA framework shouldn’t be over-stated.
That doesn’t mean getting het up about Labour’s ‘make Brexit work’ slogan which, vapid and irritating as it is, is no more than slogan. Nor is it to make the common criticism that Starmer is indulging in ‘cakeism’ with his proposals. That is off-beam, in that things like a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) or Veterinary deal, a TCA mobility chapter, and a security pact have been on offer from the EU in that past, and if Starmer pursues them it will be on a something-for-something basis, not the something-for-nothing which defines cakeism. But, as someone commenting on last week’s post under the name ‘El Fred’ put it, it could be regarded as a kind of ‘shrinkflated cupcakeism’ if that means that Starmer is at least implying that it would be possible to yield significantly larger benefits without changing the fundamental structure of the TCA.
One issue here, economics aside, is simply that it would be a refreshing antidote to the years of political dishonesty about Brexit if Labour were to tell the truth. After all, it is dishonesty which got us into this Brexit mess and, whether in relation to Brexit or anything else, it is honesty which the public say is what they most want from politicians. At the least, honesty would mean Labour being open about the fact that their post-Brexit proposals will make very little economic difference. But, refreshing as that might be, it would not be a viable policy position in itself, since it would invite the obvious demand for them to develop proposals which would make such a difference. That takes us back, then, to some version of ‘rejoining’, with the implication of the Curtice analysis being that this would not preclude Labour being in an election-winning position.
Could Labour change policy?
I don’t question for a moment that Curtice is right in his account of the structure of the Labour vote. But I’m not convinced that it carries the implication that Labour could adopt some version of a re-join policy without suffering electorally. One problem is just that there may be a difference between the overall structure of the Labour vote, as outlined by Curtice, and its structure within particular Labour marginal seats and Labour target seats. I don’t know, and it would only be possible to know through constituency-level polling. But I assume Labour conduct such polling and, if so, perhaps it is this which explains their stance but, of course, the results of these polls are not in the public domain.
Leaving that speculation aside, for Labour to espouse any version of re-joining would not just be one policy amongst others, an uncontroversial addition to their existing proposals. It would inevitably become the major focus of the campaign, overwhelming every other debate. That would carry huge dangers for Labour because, despite what Curtice says about the structure of their vote, it doesn’t follow that voters who support re-join see this as the central political issue, or that they would support another referendum, which would certainly be a necessary prelude to re-joining the EU or even the single market [1].
On the first point, of course some Labour voters do see Brexit as the major issue, but there will be many shades of strength of feeling about that, even amongst some who would vote to re-join. Remainers and re-joiners are not a homogenous group, and most readers (as well as the writer!) of this blog are hardly likely to be representative of them. So the danger for Labour is that they are seen as ‘banging on about Brexit’ when it is not the priority issue for the voters. The LibDems (although for them the electoral calculations will be different) also seem alert to this danger. For, indeed, current polls show that only 15% of the electorate think ‘leaving the EU’ is amongst the top three issues facing the country, and just 13% of the 18-24 age group do so. Even amongst 2016 remain voters the figure is only 22%, amongst LibDem voters it is 23% and amongst Labour voters it is 20%. It’s true that the issue that does most concern voters, ‘the economy’, is inextricably bound up with Brexit, as are some of the others, but it doesn’t follow that voters see it in those terms or, if they do, that they see it as the main factor.
On the second point, recent polling evidence suggests that only 39% of the population support another referendum being held in the next five years. That rises sharply to 63% amongst those who intend to vote Labour but, also amongst Labour-intending voters, 25% are opposed to such a referendum (the split amongst 2016 remain voters is almost identical). Even looking two terms ahead, to a referendum within the next ten years, the figures remain similar at 69% and 17% [2]. Again, it’s not clear what strength of feeling attaches to these views, but there must be at least some who are opposed to another referendum so strongly that the prospect of one would dissuade them from voting Labour, and at least some, perhaps many, who are in favour but whose support for it is fairly lukewarm, at least to the extent of not regarding it as a priority for the next Labour government.
How would changing Labour’s policy affect the Tory vote?
There’s another important campaign issue in this which Curtice’s analysis ignores (or, at least, it does in the clip I am discussing). Labour’s Brexit position is not just about the structure of the Labour vote, it also affects the structure of the opposition vote. If Labour put forward a re-join policy, that would enable the Tories to re-group and rally around a ‘defend Brexit’ campaign, galvanizing its core vote and, in particular, making it much easier for them to hoover up Reform Party voters who, as the opinion polls stand, look set to split the right-wing, Brexit-supporting vote. For these are voters to whom Brexit really is a defining issue.
At the moment, attempts to give a ‘vote Farage, get Starmer’ message to such voters have little chance of success. They don’t loathe Starmer as they did Corbyn, and they think Labour are probably going to win in any case. So they have a free-hit protest vote against Rishi Sunak, who they don’t regard as ‘real Conservative’ anyway. But the moment Labour adopted a re-join policy all that would change, and with current opinion polls giving Reform as much as 10% of the vote that could have a big effect. Perhaps that effect would be enough to keep Labour out of power but, even if not, then it would certainly be enough to reduce its majority, and enough to stave off a possible Tory wipe-out.
This point, just on its own, makes Labour’s stance explicable, and might also carry weight with those rejoin voters tempted to ‘punish’ Labour for the insufficiency of its Brexit policy. There is a real, epochal chance for the Tory Party to be not just defeated but annihilated in the election. It’s a chance that actually arises from Brexit itself, in that it is this which has created a schism in the electoral coalition between ideologues and pragmatists that normally holds the British right together. Small wonder that Labour don’t want to squander the possibility of such a prize by gifting the Tories a way of preventing such a schism.
What would changing policy mean for a Labour government?
This reasoning becomes all the stronger by considering what would it mean for Labour in government, even assuming it could win an election on a re-join platform. That could only mean re-joining becoming the dominant political issue for its entire first term, and an issue where success could by no means be guaranteed. It would mean holding another referendum with all that, by now, we surely know that entails for marginalizing every other issue. And it would mean winning it, which is far from certain especially if, as would surely be vital to settle the matter, it was this time held on the basis of a super-majority being needed.
Then, if all that was achieved, it would just be the beginning of a prolonged process of application to join, an application which might well fail. For, as has so often been pointed out, the EU, and its individual members, are likely to have grave reservations about UK membership. Those reservations would be all the greater if the referendum were again held as a simple majority vote, and that vote was only narrowly to re-join. But even a super-majority would not in itself eradicate the fear that, in a few years, with a new government, the UK would change its mind again. And even if that hurdle were overcome, the accession process would take time, and might not be completed by the end of Labour’s term of office. So it would go into the following election without having delivered its flagship policy.
A better approach?
Taken together, these arguments provide a strong case for the approach Labour have adopted. Where I think they have made a serious mistake is in being so dogmatic in opposing any form of re-joining, ever. It is easy to understand why, because the Tories would have exploited any ambivalence in order to claim that Labour has a ‘secret plan’ to re-join. They have tried that anyway (£), but it has had little traction precisely because it is so clear that there is no such plan. And, by the way, the Tories’ attempts in this regard give further weight to the point that, from their point of view, a Labour re-join policy would be an electoral boon, and perhaps the only thing that can save them.
However, understandable as the dogmatism of permanently ruling out re-joining may be, it has created a nasty straitjacket for the future. As I argued exactly a year ago, I think a better policy would have been to say that re-joining would have to await a strong popular and cross-party consensus, putting the responsibility with the Tories, where it properly lies, and, in the meantime, to propose improving the TCA, if possible, without over-claiming for its economic effects. This would have the virtue of honesty, an honesty which would also provide the political justification for the limitations of Labour’s policy.
Facing up to reality
With all this said, whatever I think, or whatever anyone may think of the arguments in this post, what seems unarguable is that Labour are not going to change their current Brexit position, and that becomes all the more so the closer the election gets. Even if it isn’t until the end of next year, there just isn’t time to make, communicate, and consolidate support for such a change. So, even if it is true that Starmer could or should have had a bolder position from the outset, it isn’t going to happen now.
Thus, like it or not, for voters dissatisfied with, or even disgusted by, the current position the choice will be whether to use their vote to make a Labour government or a Conservative government more likely (I phrase it that way as, in different constituencies, the voting implication of that will be different). Of course, that choice isn’t just about Brexit, but, on Brexit, even given the limitations of Labour’s policy it would be wrong to think that there is no difference between them and the Conservatives, so it’s a choice that matters and, anyway, it’s the only choice that is going to be on offer.
In a sense, the choice facing the most committed re-joiners is the mirror-image of that facing the most committed leavers. The latter have the choice of voting for what, in their terms, would be the Brexit purism of the Reform Party or the hopelessly compromised and deeply suspect Conservative Party. At the moment, it looks as if enough will choose ‘purity’ to keep the Conservatives from power. The choice on the other side, for ‘purist re-joiners’, is whether they want to do the same to Labour.
Notes
[1] There is a view sometimes expressed amongst advocates of single market (SM) membership that re-joining that, rather than the EU, would not require a referendum. There are three variants of that view. One is that, unlike EU membership, SM membership would not be a constitutional change. The second is that SM membership would have been compatible with the 2016 referendum result, and so would not require another referendum. The third is that, if Labour won an election on a rejoin SM policy, that would provide all the mandate needed.
All three versions, even if legally correct (which is arguable), are hopelessly naïve politically (in ways reminiscent of the LibDems’ ‘revoke Article 50’ policy in 2019 which, as I argued at the time, was deeply flawed both in principle and as a political tactic and strategy). For one thing, they all imply that it would be legitimate for a future Tory government to reverse policy, which also makes it an unappealing prospect for the EU/ EFTA. But that is part of a bigger issue: whatever we now do, it surely has to be permanent, and needs to be unequivocally seen as legitimate, rather than achieved by what is, or could easily be represented as, some sleight-of-hand or trickery. The Brexiters failed to achieve that, even with a referendum. If they had succeeded, we wouldn’t even be debating these matters any more. So if we have learnt nothing else from them, and from the Brexit saga generally, it is that such a mistake can never be repeated.
[2] This poll also shows that support for an immediate referendum is much weaker, with only 42% in favour and 48% against amongst Labour-intending voters (and almost exactly the same amongst 2016 remain voters). But it’s not clear what weight to put on that as the question was about a referendum “in 2023”, a pretty absurd one given that it was asked in August 2023. So I think the five- and ten-year questions I’ve referred to are the more important ones. Even so, the answer to the ‘in 2023’ question does underscore the point that support for re-join if there were to be another referendum is the not the same as support for attempting to re-join by holding another referendum.
Curtice’s analysis of the Labour vote
This issue has also been getting fresh attention because of recent remarks by the eminent polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice about the structure of current voter support for Labour. He suggests, in quite forceful terms, that “Labour’s presumption that they couldn’t get into an election winning position without fundamentally changing the character of their support vis à vis Brexit has been demonstrated to be false”. He makes three key points to explain and justify that. First, that those 2016 leave voters whose support Labour have gained since the 2019 election are atypical leave voters in that they tend to be those who now support re-joining the EU. Second, in line with general shifts against support for Brexit, those people who did vote Labour in 2019 are even more likely to be opposed to Brexit now than they were then. And, third, new voters, who were too young to vote in 2016 and/or 2019 are overwhelming pro-Labour and anti-Brexit.
The implication of this might be (I am not sure that Curtice has said this in terms, but it is certainly the conclusion that many are drawing from what he said) that Labour could have adopted, and could still adopt, a more strongly anti-Brexit position without threatening its chances of winning the election. That would, presumably, mean adopting a policy of seeking to re-join the EU or, at least, the single market (and/or entering into a comprehensive customs union with the EU). On Curtice’s analysis, such a policy would go with the grain of most of those intending to vote Labour. It would also (this is my view, not what Curtice said) be a far more credible economic policy because of the now strong evidence, discussed in my previous post, of the damage Brexit has done, and will continue to do, to growth and investment.
Economics and honesty
The economic argument appears to me to be unassailable, and as I observed last week it is quite dishonest for Labour to suggest that any changes that could realistically be made to the existing Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) would make much economic difference. Labour’s proposals shouldn’t be entirely dismissed, though, as they will smooth some of the roughest edges of what Frost and Johnson agreed. There is also some validity in Labour’s argument that, from the perspective of investment, there is a value simply in providing stability and consistency. That was the message from business (£) at this week’s ‘global investment summit’, and Labour’s commitment to maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU speaks to that. There is also value in possible improvement to security cooperation, and in a general improvement in the tone of relations with the EU. But the benefits of what can be done within the TCA framework shouldn’t be over-stated.
That doesn’t mean getting het up about Labour’s ‘make Brexit work’ slogan which, vapid and irritating as it is, is no more than slogan. Nor is it to make the common criticism that Starmer is indulging in ‘cakeism’ with his proposals. That is off-beam, in that things like a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) or Veterinary deal, a TCA mobility chapter, and a security pact have been on offer from the EU in that past, and if Starmer pursues them it will be on a something-for-something basis, not the something-for-nothing which defines cakeism. But, as someone commenting on last week’s post under the name ‘El Fred’ put it, it could be regarded as a kind of ‘shrinkflated cupcakeism’ if that means that Starmer is at least implying that it would be possible to yield significantly larger benefits without changing the fundamental structure of the TCA.
One issue here, economics aside, is simply that it would be a refreshing antidote to the years of political dishonesty about Brexit if Labour were to tell the truth. After all, it is dishonesty which got us into this Brexit mess and, whether in relation to Brexit or anything else, it is honesty which the public say is what they most want from politicians. At the least, honesty would mean Labour being open about the fact that their post-Brexit proposals will make very little economic difference. But, refreshing as that might be, it would not be a viable policy position in itself, since it would invite the obvious demand for them to develop proposals which would make such a difference. That takes us back, then, to some version of ‘rejoining’, with the implication of the Curtice analysis being that this would not preclude Labour being in an election-winning position.
Could Labour change policy?
I don’t question for a moment that Curtice is right in his account of the structure of the Labour vote. But I’m not convinced that it carries the implication that Labour could adopt some version of a re-join policy without suffering electorally. One problem is just that there may be a difference between the overall structure of the Labour vote, as outlined by Curtice, and its structure within particular Labour marginal seats and Labour target seats. I don’t know, and it would only be possible to know through constituency-level polling. But I assume Labour conduct such polling and, if so, perhaps it is this which explains their stance but, of course, the results of these polls are not in the public domain.
Leaving that speculation aside, for Labour to espouse any version of re-joining would not just be one policy amongst others, an uncontroversial addition to their existing proposals. It would inevitably become the major focus of the campaign, overwhelming every other debate. That would carry huge dangers for Labour because, despite what Curtice says about the structure of their vote, it doesn’t follow that voters who support re-join see this as the central political issue, or that they would support another referendum, which would certainly be a necessary prelude to re-joining the EU or even the single market [1].
On the first point, of course some Labour voters do see Brexit as the major issue, but there will be many shades of strength of feeling about that, even amongst some who would vote to re-join. Remainers and re-joiners are not a homogenous group, and most readers (as well as the writer!) of this blog are hardly likely to be representative of them. So the danger for Labour is that they are seen as ‘banging on about Brexit’ when it is not the priority issue for the voters. The LibDems (although for them the electoral calculations will be different) also seem alert to this danger. For, indeed, current polls show that only 15% of the electorate think ‘leaving the EU’ is amongst the top three issues facing the country, and just 13% of the 18-24 age group do so. Even amongst 2016 remain voters the figure is only 22%, amongst LibDem voters it is 23% and amongst Labour voters it is 20%. It’s true that the issue that does most concern voters, ‘the economy’, is inextricably bound up with Brexit, as are some of the others, but it doesn’t follow that voters see it in those terms or, if they do, that they see it as the main factor.
On the second point, recent polling evidence suggests that only 39% of the population support another referendum being held in the next five years. That rises sharply to 63% amongst those who intend to vote Labour but, also amongst Labour-intending voters, 25% are opposed to such a referendum (the split amongst 2016 remain voters is almost identical). Even looking two terms ahead, to a referendum within the next ten years, the figures remain similar at 69% and 17% [2]. Again, it’s not clear what strength of feeling attaches to these views, but there must be at least some who are opposed to another referendum so strongly that the prospect of one would dissuade them from voting Labour, and at least some, perhaps many, who are in favour but whose support for it is fairly lukewarm, at least to the extent of not regarding it as a priority for the next Labour government.
How would changing Labour’s policy affect the Tory vote?
There’s another important campaign issue in this which Curtice’s analysis ignores (or, at least, it does in the clip I am discussing). Labour’s Brexit position is not just about the structure of the Labour vote, it also affects the structure of the opposition vote. If Labour put forward a re-join policy, that would enable the Tories to re-group and rally around a ‘defend Brexit’ campaign, galvanizing its core vote and, in particular, making it much easier for them to hoover up Reform Party voters who, as the opinion polls stand, look set to split the right-wing, Brexit-supporting vote. For these are voters to whom Brexit really is a defining issue.
At the moment, attempts to give a ‘vote Farage, get Starmer’ message to such voters have little chance of success. They don’t loathe Starmer as they did Corbyn, and they think Labour are probably going to win in any case. So they have a free-hit protest vote against Rishi Sunak, who they don’t regard as ‘real Conservative’ anyway. But the moment Labour adopted a re-join policy all that would change, and with current opinion polls giving Reform as much as 10% of the vote that could have a big effect. Perhaps that effect would be enough to keep Labour out of power but, even if not, then it would certainly be enough to reduce its majority, and enough to stave off a possible Tory wipe-out.
This point, just on its own, makes Labour’s stance explicable, and might also carry weight with those rejoin voters tempted to ‘punish’ Labour for the insufficiency of its Brexit policy. There is a real, epochal chance for the Tory Party to be not just defeated but annihilated in the election. It’s a chance that actually arises from Brexit itself, in that it is this which has created a schism in the electoral coalition between ideologues and pragmatists that normally holds the British right together. Small wonder that Labour don’t want to squander the possibility of such a prize by gifting the Tories a way of preventing such a schism.
What would changing policy mean for a Labour government?
This reasoning becomes all the stronger by considering what would it mean for Labour in government, even assuming it could win an election on a re-join platform. That could only mean re-joining becoming the dominant political issue for its entire first term, and an issue where success could by no means be guaranteed. It would mean holding another referendum with all that, by now, we surely know that entails for marginalizing every other issue. And it would mean winning it, which is far from certain especially if, as would surely be vital to settle the matter, it was this time held on the basis of a super-majority being needed.
Then, if all that was achieved, it would just be the beginning of a prolonged process of application to join, an application which might well fail. For, as has so often been pointed out, the EU, and its individual members, are likely to have grave reservations about UK membership. Those reservations would be all the greater if the referendum were again held as a simple majority vote, and that vote was only narrowly to re-join. But even a super-majority would not in itself eradicate the fear that, in a few years, with a new government, the UK would change its mind again. And even if that hurdle were overcome, the accession process would take time, and might not be completed by the end of Labour’s term of office. So it would go into the following election without having delivered its flagship policy.
A better approach?
Taken together, these arguments provide a strong case for the approach Labour have adopted. Where I think they have made a serious mistake is in being so dogmatic in opposing any form of re-joining, ever. It is easy to understand why, because the Tories would have exploited any ambivalence in order to claim that Labour has a ‘secret plan’ to re-join. They have tried that anyway (£), but it has had little traction precisely because it is so clear that there is no such plan. And, by the way, the Tories’ attempts in this regard give further weight to the point that, from their point of view, a Labour re-join policy would be an electoral boon, and perhaps the only thing that can save them.
However, understandable as the dogmatism of permanently ruling out re-joining may be, it has created a nasty straitjacket for the future. As I argued exactly a year ago, I think a better policy would have been to say that re-joining would have to await a strong popular and cross-party consensus, putting the responsibility with the Tories, where it properly lies, and, in the meantime, to propose improving the TCA, if possible, without over-claiming for its economic effects. This would have the virtue of honesty, an honesty which would also provide the political justification for the limitations of Labour’s policy.
Facing up to reality
With all this said, whatever I think, or whatever anyone may think of the arguments in this post, what seems unarguable is that Labour are not going to change their current Brexit position, and that becomes all the more so the closer the election gets. Even if it isn’t until the end of next year, there just isn’t time to make, communicate, and consolidate support for such a change. So, even if it is true that Starmer could or should have had a bolder position from the outset, it isn’t going to happen now.
Thus, like it or not, for voters dissatisfied with, or even disgusted by, the current position the choice will be whether to use their vote to make a Labour government or a Conservative government more likely (I phrase it that way as, in different constituencies, the voting implication of that will be different). Of course, that choice isn’t just about Brexit, but, on Brexit, even given the limitations of Labour’s policy it would be wrong to think that there is no difference between them and the Conservatives, so it’s a choice that matters and, anyway, it’s the only choice that is going to be on offer.
In a sense, the choice facing the most committed re-joiners is the mirror-image of that facing the most committed leavers. The latter have the choice of voting for what, in their terms, would be the Brexit purism of the Reform Party or the hopelessly compromised and deeply suspect Conservative Party. At the moment, it looks as if enough will choose ‘purity’ to keep the Conservatives from power. The choice on the other side, for ‘purist re-joiners’, is whether they want to do the same to Labour.
Notes
[1] There is a view sometimes expressed amongst advocates of single market (SM) membership that re-joining that, rather than the EU, would not require a referendum. There are three variants of that view. One is that, unlike EU membership, SM membership would not be a constitutional change. The second is that SM membership would have been compatible with the 2016 referendum result, and so would not require another referendum. The third is that, if Labour won an election on a rejoin SM policy, that would provide all the mandate needed.
All three versions, even if legally correct (which is arguable), are hopelessly naïve politically (in ways reminiscent of the LibDems’ ‘revoke Article 50’ policy in 2019 which, as I argued at the time, was deeply flawed both in principle and as a political tactic and strategy). For one thing, they all imply that it would be legitimate for a future Tory government to reverse policy, which also makes it an unappealing prospect for the EU/ EFTA. But that is part of a bigger issue: whatever we now do, it surely has to be permanent, and needs to be unequivocally seen as legitimate, rather than achieved by what is, or could easily be represented as, some sleight-of-hand or trickery. The Brexiters failed to achieve that, even with a referendum. If they had succeeded, we wouldn’t even be debating these matters any more. So if we have learnt nothing else from them, and from the Brexit saga generally, it is that such a mistake can never be repeated.
[2] This poll also shows that support for an immediate referendum is much weaker, with only 42% in favour and 48% against amongst Labour-intending voters (and almost exactly the same amongst 2016 remain voters). But it’s not clear what weight to put on that as the question was about a referendum “in 2023”, a pretty absurd one given that it was asked in August 2023. So I think the five- and ten-year questions I’ve referred to are the more important ones. Even so, the answer to the ‘in 2023’ question does underscore the point that support for re-join if there were to be another referendum is the not the same as support for attempting to re-join by holding another referendum.
Friday, 22 September 2023
It’s limited, but Labour’s post-Brexit policy does offer voters a choice
This has been quite an important week for post-Brexit politics, in that there has been the clearest indication yet of the approach of the anticipated future Labour government, and certainly the most extensive media coverage of it, perhaps because that prospect is becoming closer. At the same time, there’s been the clearest indication yet of how Labour’s policy will differ, to an extent, from the present Tory government and differ, considerably, from the probable position of a post-election-loss Tory Party.
Labour’s ‘new’ post-Brexit stance
It is the latest stage in what has already been a long, slow process, which I’ve discussed many times in the past on this blog, most recently in June of this year. This means that, in some respects, there is little that is new. Keir Starmer has been talking since July 2022 – although it seemed to have to be dragged out of him – about seeking to improve the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), including a security pact and a veterinary agreement. And in January of this year Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy made what I argued was a significant speech, which included plans for closer and more harmonious relations with the EU.
However, Labour are now making relations with the EU a more central part of their electoral offer, and doing so more loudly and slightly more confidently, perhaps emboldened by the clear polling evidence that so many voters regard Brexit as having been a failure. Indeed the pollster Professor Sir John Curtice argues that Labour aren’t so much being bolder as “playing catch-up” with public opinion.
This began to be signaled by Starmer’s visit to meet Europol officials in The Hague last week to discuss enhanced cross-border intelligence cooperation, during which he announced Labour’s plans to strike a deal with the EU over irregular migration. Then, last weekend, he and David Lammy used a conference in Montreal to re-iterate that in government Labour would seek to re-set relations with the EU as their “number one” foreign policy goal. This isn’t just about the TCA, and would include participation in structured, formal strategic dialogue, presumably along the lines already offered by the EU but rebuffed by Rishi Sunak (£).
During the Montreal visit, Starmer also gave a major interview to the Financial Times, which, tellingly, was widely reported by other media outlets, including the BBC main news bulletins, pledging “to seek a major rewrite of Britain’s Brexit deal” as part of the TCA review in 2026. Subsequently, footage emerged, though it was hardly surprising, of him emphasising that, under Labour, there would be no desire to diverge from EU environmental, food and employment standards. Then, also widely reported, including in the French media, was Starmer’s trip, along with Lammy and Rachel Reeves, to Paris, where he held what seems to have been a positive meeting with Emmanuel Macron.
In last week’s post I suggested that a Labour government might be able to fashion “a more coherent strategy, to the extent that it might pursue closer ties with the EU across all policy areas” and, even in the short period since then, it now seems clear that this is what they will offer. As such, again as I pointed out last week, it offers a contrast to the ad hoc and inconsistent Brexit ‘pragmatism’ of Rishi Sunak, constantly hamstrung by his own lack of vision as well as the leaden, lumpen, dead weight of his Brexit Ultra MPs, and the ever-present Conservative terror of a Farageist revival.
It’s worth adding that, for all that Starmer has repeatedly endorsed the hard Brexit red lines of not re-joining the EU or the single market, he has at least implicitly rejected the Tories’ doctrinaire opposition to (almost) any role for the ECJ. That in itself opens up some space for creating closer relationships with the EU, as it is often what precludes them (for example in relation to security and commercial database sharing). That is a contrast both with one of Theresa May’s original Lancaster House ‘red lines’ and with Boris Johnson’s adolescent ‘sovereignty first’ approach to the TCA negotiations.
Moreover, it is clear from his FT interview that Starmer has set his own red line against the ‘Brexit 2.0’ of derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which so many Brexit Ultras are agitating for and which, possibly, and I would think probably, will be adopted as Conservative policy after the next election. For that matter, given Sunak’s embrace this week of the anti-Net Zero agenda of the Tory right, it’s not inconceivable that, alongside promises of a fresh push to post-Brexit regulatory divergence, it will be their policy before the election. Some may regard Starmer’s stance as a small mercy, but I think it is rather more than that: Brexit itself is bad enough, but Brexit 2.0 on top of it would be even worse.
The Brexiters’ reactions
As this new, or newly communicated, approach from Labour began to emerge, the Brexiters’ knives were sharpened, if sharpness is a quality that can be applied to what, in both senses of the word, are such dull blades. Some of their reaction had a slightly surprising tinge. We’re well-used to them predicting the imminent collapse of the EU, but, in the Telegraph, both Associate Editor Camilla Tominey (£) and columnist Nigel Farage (£) were making the slightly different argument that, according to Tominey, only “poor deluded souls ‘remain’ under the illusion that the EU is some sort of friendly and progressive family of nations” whilst, according to Farage, “it is not the cuddly place Remainers think it is”. As evidence, both of them referred to the rise of the AfD in Germany, the illiberal regimes in Poland and Hungary, and the possibility of a Le Pen presidency in France. Why would “idiot remainers”, as Farage charmingly put it, want closer ties?
It was a strange line to take. There may be some remainers who are starry-eyed about the EU, but there are at least as many Brexiters who are constantly astonished that the EU is ‘mean’ and ‘unfriendly’ for reserving the rights and benefits of membership to its own members, something which most remainers see as self-evident. And even those with the mildest of liberal sensibilities hardly need instruction from Farage, of all people, about the dangers of neo-fascist and populist regimes. Beyond that, the very fact that individual members of the EU follow their own political paths gives the lie to the Brexiter claim that membership precludes national sovereignty.
But there is an even more fundamental issue, and it lies at the heart of the fallacy of Brexit. Brexiters used to say ‘we’re leaving the EU, not leaving Europe’, a slogan which, unusually, is simultaneously a truism, nonsense, and an important insight. The important insight is that, whether or not the UK is a member of the EU, the EU and its member states are there, right next door to us. Indeed, even if the EU didn’t exist at all, the nations of Europe would be there, right next door to us. Those irreducible geo-political facts mean that, whether in terms of trade, defence, irregular migration or anything else, the UK necessarily has a significant relationship with those countries.
So the issue is how, and how best, to relate to them. Brexiters have never even tried to give a reason why being absent from the institutions that link them is a better way of relating (as opposed to their claims about the supposed benefits domestically, or in terms of relating to non-EU countries and bodies). And they most certainly haven’t given any reason why, having decided to leave those institutions, a relationship of distance and antagonism is better than one of close cooperation.
Otherwise, most of the reactions from Tories, and Brexiters generally, to Labour’s approach have been fairly predictable. Early out of the trap, like an unusually well-conditioned Pavlovian dog hearing the distant ringing of a bell, David Frost dribbled (£) that “Britain is now in serious danger of losing Brexit” because “Labour wants to take us back closer to the EU”. It didn’t make much sense as a critique, though. Frost, like many Brexiters, gives as his central ‘philosophical’ argument that democratically elected UK governments should be free to pursue whatever policies they judge to be in the UK’s best interests. So if such a government decides being closer to the EU is in the national interest, then, even in Frost’s own terms, it doesn’t mean ‘losing’ Brexit but enacting it.
A few days later, Frost came up with the even more predictable line (£) of “Brexit betrayal”. If possible, this made even less sense than his previous effort, if only because, in insisting that the EU would not countenance an improvement to the TCA he negotiated, he not only negated his claim that it was already a wonderful deal – since he implicitly conceded that, were the EU minded to agree, a better deal is possible – he also negated the very claim that a ‘betrayal’ was in prospect.
In fact, this was a recurring contradiction in the Brexiters’ reaction, such as the Mail’s report on Starmer’s meeting with Macron. On the one hand, the prospects of the EU agreeing any re-negotiation were dismissed – strangely, the Brexiters have now abandoned all their claims about Britain ‘holding all the cards’ or ‘them needing us more than we need them’ – whilst, on the other hand, the non-outcome of this non-negotiation was presented as something to fear.
That aside, Frost’s second article was revealing in being laced with disparagement of the present Tory government for “paving the way” to Labour’s supposed betrayal, a good indicator of how the Tories will conduct their election defeat post-mortem. Frost will undoubtedly be a leading player in the autopsy, which seems almost certain to conclude that Sunak failed to be a ‘true’ Conservative and Brexiter. This will, again almost certainly, presage a lurch to the ‘National Conservative’ right. Liz Truss’s attempt this week to exhume the corpse of her disastrous ‘true Brexit’ premiership (£) can also be seen as the beginning of the same dismal process, as discussed by Josh Self, the increasingly excellent political commentator who succeeded Ian Dunt as Editor of politics.co.uk.
Political dad dancing
The meta-issue in all this, shown by the reaction of Frost and numerous other Brexiters, is the endless betrayalist narrative that permeates Brexit. But its very endlessness shows its absurdity. Just how many times can Brexit be betrayed? And if it has already been betrayed then what does it matter what Labour now do? Similarly, having warned us in October 2019, and in December 2020, and in November 2022 that we were getting ‘Brexit in Name Only’, it is hard to imagine why anyone would feel greatly stirred by Nigel Farage’s latest hand-wringing about how “two years into a Labour government it will [be] Brexit in Name Only”.
In fact, generally, although the Brexiters’ attack on Labour’s plans will undoubtedly continue to resonate with hardcore Leave voters, it’s hard to see it having wider cut-through. Things have moved on from the ‘will of the people’ days, especially given how many voters, including leave voters, have become disillusioned with Brexit, and the way that Sunak’s government has already, in a limited way, accepted the deficiencies of the Johnson Brexit. In this sense, if Labour are still 'playing catch-up' with public opinion, the Tories are simply ignoring it.
For that matter, not only has there been little regulatory divergence from the EU under the Tories – because for the most part it is totally impractical, either politically or economically – but, also, there is considerable public support for things staying that way, including amongst leave voters, in line with Labour’s policy. Similarly, whilst Starmer’s mention of not diverging on environmental, food and employment standards got the predictable ‘betrayal’ treatment on this morning’s Mail front page, a commitment to at least non-regression of environmental and labour standards is part of the TCA that Johnson agreed.
However, the only songs the Brexiters have are the old ones. For example, in his moonlighting role as a GB News presenter, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s squeaky diatribe against Labour focused primarily on the possibility of re-negotiating the Brexit deal leading to the UK “shadowing” the EU through “alignment”. But it seemed embarrassingly dated, the political equivalent of dad dancing, given the numerous ways that this is happening under the Tories, for reasons very well-understood by Rees-Mogg himself (£), as illustrated by his support for the idea of the UK unilaterally adopting EU regulations and conformity assessment marking, so as to avoid the ‘red tape’ of divergence or duplication.
Rees-Mogg also deployed an altogether more cynical, and probably more electorally potent, criticism in suggesting that the public had thought that all the arguments about Brexit were over. This was the standard response from the Conservatives, with a government spokesperson telling the BBC that Starmer "wants to take Britain back to square one on Brexit, reopening the arguments of the past all over again". It is a response that eschews any discussion about the merits of a closer relationship with the EU but instead plays upon the perhaps widespread desire amongst the electorate to simply not hear anything more about Brexit. Yet, apart from being cynical, it is also dishonest, since it is the Brexiters who constantly try to drag the debate back to the toxicity of 2016, not least with the accusation that any steps to a closer the relationship are 'betraying Brexit'.
By contrast, Labour’s policy is plainly an attempt to avoid ‘reopening the old arguments’ at all costs, hence Starmer’s insistence that there is no case to re-join the EU or the single market. That attempt attracts the hostility of Brexiters, who argue that his real agenda is rejoining, and that seeking a closer relationship is a route to this. But, ironically, it attracts as much hostility from re-joiners, who argue that his real agenda ought to be rejoining, and that seeking a closer relationship doesn’t offer any route to this.
Towards ‘de-Brexitification’?
My reading is slightly different. I think what Labour are doing, sensibly, is to try to ‘de-Brexitify’ the entire question of UK-EU relations, and to approach them as a policy issue that may be very different in detail, but no different in kind, from the way the UK conducts its relations with other friendly powers. Contrary to the Brexiters’ criticisms, that doesn’t entail reversing Brexit, but contrary to the re-joiners’ criticisms it does not preclude doing so, and is a necessary step to doing so.
If successful, normalizing relations, and not framing them constantly in terms of the now dead question of whether to leave the EU, would be a good thing in itself, undoing some of the damage of Brexit, as well as providing at least one of the preconditions for a viable case for joining the EU to be made (another being an active campaign movement for doing so). To put that another way, whilst Brexiters are wrong to think that Starmer’s insistence that ‘there is no case to re-join’ conceals a current intention to do just that, it really shouldn’t be difficult for re-joiners to envisage that, at some time down the line, he will say that circumstances have changed and that there is now such a case.
It may well be that Labour, at least in public statements, are pinning far too much on the TCA review, which is designed as a technical stock-taking exercise rather than a vehicle for re-negotiation. This week, the UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) research centre produced an excellent report on this, explaining that, as things stand, the EU is likely to approach the review from just such a ‘minimalist’ perspective, and that if a Labour government wants to make the scope more ‘maximalist’, then the onus will be on it to persuade the EU that this is worthwhile, which won’t be easy. Moreover, even if that persuasion is successful in setting a maximalist agenda, then pursuing it to a successful conclusion will take a long time to negotiate. Peter Foster and Andy Bounds of the Financial Times provided a similarly cautious analysis (£).
However, an interesting Twitter (or X, or perhaps ex-Twitter) thread by Mujtaba Rahman, the well-connected and insightful Europe MD of the Eurasia Group, offered a perhaps more subtle, and rather more optimistic, perspective. Amongst other things, he argues that the importance of changing the tone of the UK-EU relationship shouldn’t be underestimated. That’s not, as is sometimes dismissively suggested, for the naïve reason of thinking that a more ‘friendly’ atmosphere will make much concrete difference, but because Labour look set to bring what Rahman characterizes as a “more consistent, more serious and more forward-leaning engagement” than the UK government has shown since 2016. That, along with greater realism than the Tories have shown, could create new incentives for the EU to engage with the UK.
Domestically, Rahman suggests that Labour ruling out all forms of re-joining gives them “political cover” to make non-trivial improvements. It’s true, as the UKICE report points out, that even the maximalist version of the TCA review would not greatly shift the economic dial, but the report also provides a list of the substantive improvements that could result. Of course, they aren’t going to ‘make Brexit work’, but it simply isn’t true, despite what most re-joiner critics of Labour insist, that Starmer’s red lines preclude any progress of any value at all. Indeed, that’s demonstrated by the UKICE point that the maximalist version of the TCA review would require protracted negotiation. That would hardly be so if the possible changes were as trivial as those critics claim.
Rahman also points out that the positions of both Labour and the EU are in flux, with many possible outcomes. One indication of this was the publication this week of a Franco-German plan, reported by The Times (£) as being “designed with Labour in mind”, although better understood as part of a far broader EU discussion about enlargement, for new forms of tiered ‘associate membership’ of the EU, within which the UK might find a place. It’s not an altogether new idea, although the context is, and a shadow minister was quick to disown any interest in it, which is unsurprising as it goes much further than Labour are willing to go this side of the election. But it does point to the way that, as Ian Dunt of the i put it, “a new kind of European future” could emerge for Britain.
The domestic choice
Whether or not that is so, the domestic politics of Brexit are becoming clearer, at least in terms of what the alternative to the Tories’ approach consists of. It is a Labour, or perhaps Labour-led, government which won’t offer (and, arguably, couldn’t deliver, at least in its first term) a reversal of hard Brexit, but will develop as close and as harmonious a relationship as the EU will agree to short of that. That isn’t just about the TCA review, but the entirety of the ongoing relationship.
That opens some clear water between the parties, though it is of slender breadth. As Rafael Behr eloquently put it in the Guardian, “the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are both shopping for European policy in the narrow aisle between economic grasp of the problem and political fear of the remedy”. The difference, though, is slightly greater than it seems, and greater than Behr perhaps allows, not so much in itself as in the direction and speed of travel it points to. Just as it is now widely understood, even by most Brexiters, that Brexit is a process, not an event, the same holds for ‘de-Brexitificaton’ and even ‘de-Brexiting’, if they are to happen.
The problem, of course, as Behr concludes, is that “time is already running out”. More accurately, the problem is the tension between two different timescales. The more time that passes since the 2016 referendum, the more the toxicity of Brexit recedes, the more its sensitivity as a political issue reduces, the more the generation of politicians which was obsessed with getting it passes, and the more the electoral demographic that most supported it is replaced by that which was most opposed to it. On the other hand, the more time that goes by without being a member of at least the single market, the more the economic damage racks up as, without also being a member of the EU, does the geo-political damage.
Within that framing, the first timescale isn’t much affected by who is in power, but would be slightly accelerated by a Labour government if only because that would marginalize Tory Brexiter politicians. The second timescale could be slightly shortened by a Labour government, and the interim damage slightly reduced, or possibly considerably reduced compared with what a Tory government might decide to do if elected.
It may not seem like much of a choice, but it is a choice, and this week made it clearer than ever that it will be the one facing us at the next election. The outcome will make some difference to post-Brexit policy in the following years, but could make a huge difference to the choices available in the election after that.
Note: I have re-enabled comments on this blog, for an experimental period, under a strict comments policy.
Labour’s ‘new’ post-Brexit stance
It is the latest stage in what has already been a long, slow process, which I’ve discussed many times in the past on this blog, most recently in June of this year. This means that, in some respects, there is little that is new. Keir Starmer has been talking since July 2022 – although it seemed to have to be dragged out of him – about seeking to improve the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), including a security pact and a veterinary agreement. And in January of this year Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy made what I argued was a significant speech, which included plans for closer and more harmonious relations with the EU.
However, Labour are now making relations with the EU a more central part of their electoral offer, and doing so more loudly and slightly more confidently, perhaps emboldened by the clear polling evidence that so many voters regard Brexit as having been a failure. Indeed the pollster Professor Sir John Curtice argues that Labour aren’t so much being bolder as “playing catch-up” with public opinion.
This began to be signaled by Starmer’s visit to meet Europol officials in The Hague last week to discuss enhanced cross-border intelligence cooperation, during which he announced Labour’s plans to strike a deal with the EU over irregular migration. Then, last weekend, he and David Lammy used a conference in Montreal to re-iterate that in government Labour would seek to re-set relations with the EU as their “number one” foreign policy goal. This isn’t just about the TCA, and would include participation in structured, formal strategic dialogue, presumably along the lines already offered by the EU but rebuffed by Rishi Sunak (£).
During the Montreal visit, Starmer also gave a major interview to the Financial Times, which, tellingly, was widely reported by other media outlets, including the BBC main news bulletins, pledging “to seek a major rewrite of Britain’s Brexit deal” as part of the TCA review in 2026. Subsequently, footage emerged, though it was hardly surprising, of him emphasising that, under Labour, there would be no desire to diverge from EU environmental, food and employment standards. Then, also widely reported, including in the French media, was Starmer’s trip, along with Lammy and Rachel Reeves, to Paris, where he held what seems to have been a positive meeting with Emmanuel Macron.
In last week’s post I suggested that a Labour government might be able to fashion “a more coherent strategy, to the extent that it might pursue closer ties with the EU across all policy areas” and, even in the short period since then, it now seems clear that this is what they will offer. As such, again as I pointed out last week, it offers a contrast to the ad hoc and inconsistent Brexit ‘pragmatism’ of Rishi Sunak, constantly hamstrung by his own lack of vision as well as the leaden, lumpen, dead weight of his Brexit Ultra MPs, and the ever-present Conservative terror of a Farageist revival.
It’s worth adding that, for all that Starmer has repeatedly endorsed the hard Brexit red lines of not re-joining the EU or the single market, he has at least implicitly rejected the Tories’ doctrinaire opposition to (almost) any role for the ECJ. That in itself opens up some space for creating closer relationships with the EU, as it is often what precludes them (for example in relation to security and commercial database sharing). That is a contrast both with one of Theresa May’s original Lancaster House ‘red lines’ and with Boris Johnson’s adolescent ‘sovereignty first’ approach to the TCA negotiations.
Moreover, it is clear from his FT interview that Starmer has set his own red line against the ‘Brexit 2.0’ of derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which so many Brexit Ultras are agitating for and which, possibly, and I would think probably, will be adopted as Conservative policy after the next election. For that matter, given Sunak’s embrace this week of the anti-Net Zero agenda of the Tory right, it’s not inconceivable that, alongside promises of a fresh push to post-Brexit regulatory divergence, it will be their policy before the election. Some may regard Starmer’s stance as a small mercy, but I think it is rather more than that: Brexit itself is bad enough, but Brexit 2.0 on top of it would be even worse.
The Brexiters’ reactions
As this new, or newly communicated, approach from Labour began to emerge, the Brexiters’ knives were sharpened, if sharpness is a quality that can be applied to what, in both senses of the word, are such dull blades. Some of their reaction had a slightly surprising tinge. We’re well-used to them predicting the imminent collapse of the EU, but, in the Telegraph, both Associate Editor Camilla Tominey (£) and columnist Nigel Farage (£) were making the slightly different argument that, according to Tominey, only “poor deluded souls ‘remain’ under the illusion that the EU is some sort of friendly and progressive family of nations” whilst, according to Farage, “it is not the cuddly place Remainers think it is”. As evidence, both of them referred to the rise of the AfD in Germany, the illiberal regimes in Poland and Hungary, and the possibility of a Le Pen presidency in France. Why would “idiot remainers”, as Farage charmingly put it, want closer ties?
It was a strange line to take. There may be some remainers who are starry-eyed about the EU, but there are at least as many Brexiters who are constantly astonished that the EU is ‘mean’ and ‘unfriendly’ for reserving the rights and benefits of membership to its own members, something which most remainers see as self-evident. And even those with the mildest of liberal sensibilities hardly need instruction from Farage, of all people, about the dangers of neo-fascist and populist regimes. Beyond that, the very fact that individual members of the EU follow their own political paths gives the lie to the Brexiter claim that membership precludes national sovereignty.
But there is an even more fundamental issue, and it lies at the heart of the fallacy of Brexit. Brexiters used to say ‘we’re leaving the EU, not leaving Europe’, a slogan which, unusually, is simultaneously a truism, nonsense, and an important insight. The important insight is that, whether or not the UK is a member of the EU, the EU and its member states are there, right next door to us. Indeed, even if the EU didn’t exist at all, the nations of Europe would be there, right next door to us. Those irreducible geo-political facts mean that, whether in terms of trade, defence, irregular migration or anything else, the UK necessarily has a significant relationship with those countries.
So the issue is how, and how best, to relate to them. Brexiters have never even tried to give a reason why being absent from the institutions that link them is a better way of relating (as opposed to their claims about the supposed benefits domestically, or in terms of relating to non-EU countries and bodies). And they most certainly haven’t given any reason why, having decided to leave those institutions, a relationship of distance and antagonism is better than one of close cooperation.
Otherwise, most of the reactions from Tories, and Brexiters generally, to Labour’s approach have been fairly predictable. Early out of the trap, like an unusually well-conditioned Pavlovian dog hearing the distant ringing of a bell, David Frost dribbled (£) that “Britain is now in serious danger of losing Brexit” because “Labour wants to take us back closer to the EU”. It didn’t make much sense as a critique, though. Frost, like many Brexiters, gives as his central ‘philosophical’ argument that democratically elected UK governments should be free to pursue whatever policies they judge to be in the UK’s best interests. So if such a government decides being closer to the EU is in the national interest, then, even in Frost’s own terms, it doesn’t mean ‘losing’ Brexit but enacting it.
A few days later, Frost came up with the even more predictable line (£) of “Brexit betrayal”. If possible, this made even less sense than his previous effort, if only because, in insisting that the EU would not countenance an improvement to the TCA he negotiated, he not only negated his claim that it was already a wonderful deal – since he implicitly conceded that, were the EU minded to agree, a better deal is possible – he also negated the very claim that a ‘betrayal’ was in prospect.
In fact, this was a recurring contradiction in the Brexiters’ reaction, such as the Mail’s report on Starmer’s meeting with Macron. On the one hand, the prospects of the EU agreeing any re-negotiation were dismissed – strangely, the Brexiters have now abandoned all their claims about Britain ‘holding all the cards’ or ‘them needing us more than we need them’ – whilst, on the other hand, the non-outcome of this non-negotiation was presented as something to fear.
That aside, Frost’s second article was revealing in being laced with disparagement of the present Tory government for “paving the way” to Labour’s supposed betrayal, a good indicator of how the Tories will conduct their election defeat post-mortem. Frost will undoubtedly be a leading player in the autopsy, which seems almost certain to conclude that Sunak failed to be a ‘true’ Conservative and Brexiter. This will, again almost certainly, presage a lurch to the ‘National Conservative’ right. Liz Truss’s attempt this week to exhume the corpse of her disastrous ‘true Brexit’ premiership (£) can also be seen as the beginning of the same dismal process, as discussed by Josh Self, the increasingly excellent political commentator who succeeded Ian Dunt as Editor of politics.co.uk.
Political dad dancing
The meta-issue in all this, shown by the reaction of Frost and numerous other Brexiters, is the endless betrayalist narrative that permeates Brexit. But its very endlessness shows its absurdity. Just how many times can Brexit be betrayed? And if it has already been betrayed then what does it matter what Labour now do? Similarly, having warned us in October 2019, and in December 2020, and in November 2022 that we were getting ‘Brexit in Name Only’, it is hard to imagine why anyone would feel greatly stirred by Nigel Farage’s latest hand-wringing about how “two years into a Labour government it will [be] Brexit in Name Only”.
In fact, generally, although the Brexiters’ attack on Labour’s plans will undoubtedly continue to resonate with hardcore Leave voters, it’s hard to see it having wider cut-through. Things have moved on from the ‘will of the people’ days, especially given how many voters, including leave voters, have become disillusioned with Brexit, and the way that Sunak’s government has already, in a limited way, accepted the deficiencies of the Johnson Brexit. In this sense, if Labour are still 'playing catch-up' with public opinion, the Tories are simply ignoring it.
For that matter, not only has there been little regulatory divergence from the EU under the Tories – because for the most part it is totally impractical, either politically or economically – but, also, there is considerable public support for things staying that way, including amongst leave voters, in line with Labour’s policy. Similarly, whilst Starmer’s mention of not diverging on environmental, food and employment standards got the predictable ‘betrayal’ treatment on this morning’s Mail front page, a commitment to at least non-regression of environmental and labour standards is part of the TCA that Johnson agreed.
However, the only songs the Brexiters have are the old ones. For example, in his moonlighting role as a GB News presenter, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s squeaky diatribe against Labour focused primarily on the possibility of re-negotiating the Brexit deal leading to the UK “shadowing” the EU through “alignment”. But it seemed embarrassingly dated, the political equivalent of dad dancing, given the numerous ways that this is happening under the Tories, for reasons very well-understood by Rees-Mogg himself (£), as illustrated by his support for the idea of the UK unilaterally adopting EU regulations and conformity assessment marking, so as to avoid the ‘red tape’ of divergence or duplication.
Rees-Mogg also deployed an altogether more cynical, and probably more electorally potent, criticism in suggesting that the public had thought that all the arguments about Brexit were over. This was the standard response from the Conservatives, with a government spokesperson telling the BBC that Starmer "wants to take Britain back to square one on Brexit, reopening the arguments of the past all over again". It is a response that eschews any discussion about the merits of a closer relationship with the EU but instead plays upon the perhaps widespread desire amongst the electorate to simply not hear anything more about Brexit. Yet, apart from being cynical, it is also dishonest, since it is the Brexiters who constantly try to drag the debate back to the toxicity of 2016, not least with the accusation that any steps to a closer the relationship are 'betraying Brexit'.
By contrast, Labour’s policy is plainly an attempt to avoid ‘reopening the old arguments’ at all costs, hence Starmer’s insistence that there is no case to re-join the EU or the single market. That attempt attracts the hostility of Brexiters, who argue that his real agenda is rejoining, and that seeking a closer relationship is a route to this. But, ironically, it attracts as much hostility from re-joiners, who argue that his real agenda ought to be rejoining, and that seeking a closer relationship doesn’t offer any route to this.
Towards ‘de-Brexitification’?
My reading is slightly different. I think what Labour are doing, sensibly, is to try to ‘de-Brexitify’ the entire question of UK-EU relations, and to approach them as a policy issue that may be very different in detail, but no different in kind, from the way the UK conducts its relations with other friendly powers. Contrary to the Brexiters’ criticisms, that doesn’t entail reversing Brexit, but contrary to the re-joiners’ criticisms it does not preclude doing so, and is a necessary step to doing so.
If successful, normalizing relations, and not framing them constantly in terms of the now dead question of whether to leave the EU, would be a good thing in itself, undoing some of the damage of Brexit, as well as providing at least one of the preconditions for a viable case for joining the EU to be made (another being an active campaign movement for doing so). To put that another way, whilst Brexiters are wrong to think that Starmer’s insistence that ‘there is no case to re-join’ conceals a current intention to do just that, it really shouldn’t be difficult for re-joiners to envisage that, at some time down the line, he will say that circumstances have changed and that there is now such a case.
It may well be that Labour, at least in public statements, are pinning far too much on the TCA review, which is designed as a technical stock-taking exercise rather than a vehicle for re-negotiation. This week, the UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) research centre produced an excellent report on this, explaining that, as things stand, the EU is likely to approach the review from just such a ‘minimalist’ perspective, and that if a Labour government wants to make the scope more ‘maximalist’, then the onus will be on it to persuade the EU that this is worthwhile, which won’t be easy. Moreover, even if that persuasion is successful in setting a maximalist agenda, then pursuing it to a successful conclusion will take a long time to negotiate. Peter Foster and Andy Bounds of the Financial Times provided a similarly cautious analysis (£).
However, an interesting Twitter (or X, or perhaps ex-Twitter) thread by Mujtaba Rahman, the well-connected and insightful Europe MD of the Eurasia Group, offered a perhaps more subtle, and rather more optimistic, perspective. Amongst other things, he argues that the importance of changing the tone of the UK-EU relationship shouldn’t be underestimated. That’s not, as is sometimes dismissively suggested, for the naïve reason of thinking that a more ‘friendly’ atmosphere will make much concrete difference, but because Labour look set to bring what Rahman characterizes as a “more consistent, more serious and more forward-leaning engagement” than the UK government has shown since 2016. That, along with greater realism than the Tories have shown, could create new incentives for the EU to engage with the UK.
Domestically, Rahman suggests that Labour ruling out all forms of re-joining gives them “political cover” to make non-trivial improvements. It’s true, as the UKICE report points out, that even the maximalist version of the TCA review would not greatly shift the economic dial, but the report also provides a list of the substantive improvements that could result. Of course, they aren’t going to ‘make Brexit work’, but it simply isn’t true, despite what most re-joiner critics of Labour insist, that Starmer’s red lines preclude any progress of any value at all. Indeed, that’s demonstrated by the UKICE point that the maximalist version of the TCA review would require protracted negotiation. That would hardly be so if the possible changes were as trivial as those critics claim.
Rahman also points out that the positions of both Labour and the EU are in flux, with many possible outcomes. One indication of this was the publication this week of a Franco-German plan, reported by The Times (£) as being “designed with Labour in mind”, although better understood as part of a far broader EU discussion about enlargement, for new forms of tiered ‘associate membership’ of the EU, within which the UK might find a place. It’s not an altogether new idea, although the context is, and a shadow minister was quick to disown any interest in it, which is unsurprising as it goes much further than Labour are willing to go this side of the election. But it does point to the way that, as Ian Dunt of the i put it, “a new kind of European future” could emerge for Britain.
The domestic choice
Whether or not that is so, the domestic politics of Brexit are becoming clearer, at least in terms of what the alternative to the Tories’ approach consists of. It is a Labour, or perhaps Labour-led, government which won’t offer (and, arguably, couldn’t deliver, at least in its first term) a reversal of hard Brexit, but will develop as close and as harmonious a relationship as the EU will agree to short of that. That isn’t just about the TCA review, but the entirety of the ongoing relationship.
That opens some clear water between the parties, though it is of slender breadth. As Rafael Behr eloquently put it in the Guardian, “the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are both shopping for European policy in the narrow aisle between economic grasp of the problem and political fear of the remedy”. The difference, though, is slightly greater than it seems, and greater than Behr perhaps allows, not so much in itself as in the direction and speed of travel it points to. Just as it is now widely understood, even by most Brexiters, that Brexit is a process, not an event, the same holds for ‘de-Brexitificaton’ and even ‘de-Brexiting’, if they are to happen.
The problem, of course, as Behr concludes, is that “time is already running out”. More accurately, the problem is the tension between two different timescales. The more time that passes since the 2016 referendum, the more the toxicity of Brexit recedes, the more its sensitivity as a political issue reduces, the more the generation of politicians which was obsessed with getting it passes, and the more the electoral demographic that most supported it is replaced by that which was most opposed to it. On the other hand, the more time that goes by without being a member of at least the single market, the more the economic damage racks up as, without also being a member of the EU, does the geo-political damage.
Within that framing, the first timescale isn’t much affected by who is in power, but would be slightly accelerated by a Labour government if only because that would marginalize Tory Brexiter politicians. The second timescale could be slightly shortened by a Labour government, and the interim damage slightly reduced, or possibly considerably reduced compared with what a Tory government might decide to do if elected.
It may not seem like much of a choice, but it is a choice, and this week made it clearer than ever that it will be the one facing us at the next election. The outcome will make some difference to post-Brexit policy in the following years, but could make a huge difference to the choices available in the election after that.
Note: I have re-enabled comments on this blog, for an experimental period, under a strict comments policy.
Friday, 2 June 2023
As Brexit fails, attention turns to Labour
The failure of Brexit is now widely acknowledged and ever-more openly discussed. But there isn’t going to be some quick, neat or easy epochal change. Brexiters aren’t going to give up quietly, and the process of addressing the failure of Brexit is going to be complex and fraught with difficulties.
Still, there is a gradual shift under way. For a long time after the transition period ended, the damage Brexit was causing lurked in the shadows. It’s not that it wasn’t reported, but those reports were often piecemeal in nature, rather than drawn together, and Brexit often featured in the small print as a factor in whatever damage was being discussed rather than as the headlines. That is increasingly changing, with a good example being the two-part series assessing Brexit in this week’s Times newspaper (here and here). There’s far too much in it for me to summarise but, although striving almost painfully at times to be ‘balanced’, the overall picture was undeniably clear, and undeniably negative.
Even without much media prompting, and despite a barrage of pro-Brexit reporting from some parts of the media, as well as much Tory boosterism, the public view has for many months been settling to the view that Brexit was a mistake and has failed. The latest YouGov polling records its lowest-ever level of people thinking Brexit was the right choice (31%) and the joint highest-ever level of those thinking it was a mistake (56%). It also shows 62% think Brexit has been ‘more of a failure’ and just 9% that it has been ‘more of a success’. Inevitably the responses of leave voters and remain voters are rather different, but even amongst leave voters the figures are 37% saying failure and 20% saying success, with a lot who think ‘neither’ (35% of leaver voters compared with just 6% of remain voters).
It's worth pausing to consider just how damning an indictment of Brexit those figures are, so I’ll repeat them. Just 9% of all electors, and only 20% even of those who voted for it, think Brexit is a success. By comparison, a 2019 survey found that 16% of the UK adult population believe that the moon landing was staged.
Brexit betrayed
However, there’s an important difference between those remain voters who think Brexit is a failure, of whom about three-quarters think it was always going to be, and those leave voters who think it is a failure, of whom about three-quarters think that it could have been a success if it had been implemented differently. That isn’t a surprising finding, but it matters because it shows that disillusionment with Brexit ‘as an idea’ is far from universal, and also that there is quite a deep seam of opinion susceptible to a narrative of Brexit ‘betrayal’.
It's a seam which Brexiters were always going to mine assiduously, and a particularly unhinged example was provided by Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn last Friday. It wasn’t just about Brexit, but slurs about ‘salivating remoaners’ with ‘loyalty to the EU’ permeated a wider attack on the “New Establishment” – an apparent nod towards political scientist Matthew Goodwin’s half-baked ‘new Elite’ theory - and its supposed “coup” against the government. But careful readers, if such the Mail has, would notice, even if Littlejohn is too careless a writer to realise it, that this was all rather let down by the observation that “to describe all this as a conspiracy is not entirely accurate [as] it's not co-ordinated.” So not, in fact, a “coup” at all.
This kind of ‘stab in the back’ myth (the on-line version of Littlejohn’s article was actually illustrated with a bloody dagger) has always been the most dangerous potential outcome of Brexit, and Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian recently and rightly warned that what follows from it “may be very dark indeed”. That said, it’s worth remembering that, with or without Brexit, Littlejohn has been squeezing stuff like this out of his anger-tightened sphincter into the eager maw of the Mail’s lavatory bowl for 30 years, on and off. In fact, the kind of aggressive victimhood of a ‘lost country’ his writing exemplifies is a big part of what drove the leave vote. It’s not even the first time he has posited a “coup staged by remainers” – he did so as recently as October 2022 – despite having assured his readers in January 2021 that Brexit was “all over bar the shouting”. You couldn’t make it up, to coin a phrase.
Whilst Littlejohn fulminates, other members of the Brexiter commentariat have adopted a more listless and resigned attitude to how the glorious possibilities of Brexit have been squandered. For example, Fred de Fossard of the Legatum Institute wearily bemoans (£) the government’s failure to pursue a deregulatory agenda, though that was never the automatic consequence even of hard Brexit, and laments the forthcoming introduction of import controls, which was. The “climbdown” on Retained EU Law is also dolefully recounted (“the less said about [it] the better”, de Fossard sighs), but with no recognition of why that, or any of the other foregone ‘opportunities’, have failed to materialize. Indeed, scratch the surface and the explanation offered is a more urbane version of Littlejohn’s, whereby “our entrenched bureaucracy ensures [that voters always] get the same Left-wing, Europhile outcomes”. As a result, “the whole concept of Brexit” is now imperilled, the sometime special adviser to Jacob Rees-Mogg glumly concludes.
Brexit’s last defences
Whether blamed on betrayal, or just lack of political will, these responses at least acknowledge that Brexit hasn’t been a success. But some Brexiters aren’t ready to accept that (and never will be). Instead, individual pieces of economic good news are still trumpeted as evidence that it has been triumph, a recent example being the thuggish Tory MP Lee Anderson's boast that the reported decision by Tata to build a gigafactory in Britain rather than Spain is “another Brexit bonus”. The obvious problem is that something can only be a Brexit benefit if it couldn’t or wouldn’t have happened without Brexit, which isn’t the case in this example. And, of course, even where there are any such benefits, they need to be set against the many costs to justify Brexit as a success overall.
It’s also typical of such claims to invoke a strawman that ‘remainers said there would be no more investment after Brexit’ or ‘remainers said there’d be no more trade with the EU after Brexit’, or the slightly different one that ‘remainers blame all Britain’s economic problems on Brexit’. Needless to say, no serious analyst has ever suggested such things, but even if they had then the most it would mean is that Brexit hasn’t been as bad as some said it would be, or that it may not have been a success, but at least it hasn’t been a failure.
For example, in a Telegraph article (£) the pro-Brexit economist Julian Jessop discusses the impact of Brexit on the services sector. It’s headlined as a “success story”, but the content is less ebullient. “If one thinks back to all the apocalyptic claims made by Remainers, our services industry should be a smoking ruin by now”, he says, conjuring up “doomsday predictions”. But worry not, for “the overall impact has been far less than feared”. It’s hardly an inspiring defence. To be fair, Jessop recognizes this, saying “it is not enough just to say that Brexit has been less damaging than expected. It was supposed to benefit the City. But this is a process.” However, this is just another of the stock defences: the benefits are always just over the horizon.
Still less compelling is the current fashion for comparing UK economic performance with that of Germany (£), or perhaps a wider selection of EU countries (£), selected over this or that timeframe, to argue that the UK’s is no worse, and perhaps slightly better. That fashion seems to have arisen because the IMF, its forecasts suddenly now in favour with the Brexiters who usually disparage them, upgraded its 2023 forecast for the UK from a 0.3% contraction to a 0.4% expansion, whilst forecasting the German economy to shrink by 0.1%.
Even if it made sense to ascribe these (rather negligible) differences to Brexit, it would not be much of an argument because, again, Brexit wasn’t undertaken on the basis that it wouldn’t be a failure but that it would be positively advantageous. But, in any case, it doesn’t make any sense. Whether in the EU or not, the UK’s economy, like any member state, fluctuates at different times and for sometimes different reasons to that of Germany (or any other individual country). In particular, Germany’s current economic difficulties are very obviously connected to its rapid diversification from over-dependence on Russian energy. So, except as a kind of schoolyard ‘what about you?’ taunt, such comparisons tell us nothing one way or the other about Brexit.
The key comparisons are between Brexit UK and how the UK would have performed without Brexit. That inevitably involves a counterfactual model, and the latest version of the best-known such model, the Springford CER ‘doppelgänger’, shows that by June 2022 the UK GDP was 5.5% lower than it would have been without Brexit. That may overestimate the damage or may underestimate it. But (to the best of my knowledge) neither the government nor any of the pro-Brexit economists have ever produced a comparable counterfactual model showing Brexit to have been economically beneficial to the UK. So on this key test there is, at the very least, no evidence of Brexit being an economic success.
What about Labour?
With Brexiters now engaged in the last stages of their attempt to deny Brexit has failed, and the latest stages of developing fantasies about why it has failed, and with the Sunak government in the throes of a protracted death, attention is increasingly turning to the prospects of a Labour administration. Interestingly, Brexiter fears for what that will bring are diametrically opposite to those of many erstwhile remainers. At least some Brexiters are convinced that Labour has “a secret 10-year plan to take Britain back into the EU” (£), whereas some remainers believe that there is no difference at all between Labour and Tory approaches to Brexit. The reality is more complex than either view allows.
Although by definition it’s unprovable either way, it’s absurd to think that Starmer has a ‘secret plan’ to re-join the EU. There’s literally no evidence for it, so Brexiters are wrong and rejoiners are right about that. However, it’s true that the logic of Labour’s position on Brexit – everything it says about the damage of it – points in the direction of eventually re-joining. So, forgetting any idea of a secret plan, the Brexiters are right to suspect that this would be the direction of travel for Labour (though they may be wrong that it will be the point of arrival), and re-joiners are wrong to dismiss the possibility of it going in that direction (though they may be right that it won’t be the point of arrival).
Remainer or re-joiner scepticism about Labour’s intentions was reinforced this week by Keir Starmer’s Express article, in which he again re-iterated Labour’s policy of no return to the EU, single market or customs union, but of wanting to improve the existing UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Most strikingly, and to many remainers most reprehensibly, he referred to the inadequate nature of that deal as meaning that “our European friends and competitors are not just eating our lunch – they’re nicking our dinner money as well”.
The clue to understanding this article is the polling figures I referred to earlier. It was written for the three-quarters of the 37% of Leave voters who believe Brexit has failed because of the way it has been implemented. More particularly, it was written for the erstwhile and potential Labour voters within that group who may be minded to blame that on the Tories. That is an important segment of voters for Labour to speak to, and the Express is a good place to reach it, with the pitch being based on tapping into, but subverting, the narrative of Brexit betrayal. The language may have been ugly and grating, but politics can be a dirty business, or at least it is for those who value winning above high-mindedness.
Of course, there is a tactical dilemma for Labour: in making its appeal to such voters it may lose support elsewhere (£), and there’s some polling evidence that this is happening. But the delicate calculation is presumably that many who respond to things like the Express article by angrily saying ‘I’ll never vote for Labour now’ will, when it comes to it, do so. Or, if not, that the votes lost will be in constituencies where the outcome isn’t affected, whilst those gained prove decisive in other seats. Again, it’s all grubby stuff for the squeamish, but perhaps they should reflect that after fourteen years in opposition squeamishness isn’t something Labour can afford to indulge.
Beneath Labour’s tactics
Tactics aside, what matters is what lies beneath. In his discussion of Starmer’s article, Ian Dunt, who has been consistently acute in his analysis of Brexit from the start, and often very critical of Labour, argues that “in truth, Labour’s Brexit position is far more nuanced, and much more radical, than it first appears. It has been carefully couched in the language of Brexit defence, but the proposals themselves promise a return to a much closer relationship with the Continent. It is the start of a journey back to Europe.”
The key word here is “journey” or, as I’ve put it, ‘direction of travel’. Starmer is cautiously going with the grain of public opinion, with a poll this week suggesting that 53% of voters favour ‘closer ties’ with the EU, and even in strongly vote-leaving areas a plurality doing so. What they mean by it is undoubtedly varied, but a first-term Labour government can be expected to push its possible meanings to the maximum it could without breaking manifesto commitments or suffering too much electoral kickback.
For an important example of what this would mean, in a footnote to my previous post I suggested that the seemingly arcane difference between Swiss-style ‘dynamic alignment’ and New Zealand-style ‘regulatory equivalence’ in Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) standards might become an issue under a Labour government, since Labour’s apparently preferred policy of a New Zealand-style deal had already been rejected by the EU, whilst a Swiss-style deal had been ruled out by Starmer.
I meant that we might hear more about this in years to come, so it was much to my amusement that, just a few hours later, and presumably coincidentally, the Telegraph carried a report (£) ‘revealing’ this EU rejection of a New Zealand-style deal and, with almost heart-stopping irony, quoting David Frost castigating Starmer for “trying to sell unnegotiable fantasy proposals to voters”. In a mirror-image of that critique, some remainers, too, leapt on this report as evidence that Starmer was just reproducing the impossibilities of “cakeism”.
But it is easy to imagine Labour in power, having pledged in their manifesto to negotiate a ‘veterinary agreement with the EU’, agreeing dynamic alignment with the EU. That isn’t cakeism, as it has already been offered by the EU, and the fact that Starmer has previously said he doesn’t want a Swiss-style deal will be irrelevant as he has also said he wants a ‘bespoke deal’ and, almost by definition, any UK-EU deal will be that. Will electors who support ‘closer ties with the EU’ object? Highly unlikely. And if there is a ‘bespoke UK-EU’ SPS dynamic alignment deal then it means the hard Brexit ECJ red line will have been comprehensively breached, allowing it to be breached in all manner of other ways, in relation to trade, security, and participation in various programmes and agencies.
Beneath Labour’s hints
Much of this has already been hinted at by the public statements of Starmer and other senior Labour politicians, including Rachel Reeves and David Lammy. A much more detailed set of proposals for what it could mean in practice was published this week by the UK Trade and Business Commission, an unofficial but highly professional grouping of cross-party MPs, business people and experts. Their report, which is based on extensive evidence-gathering from a huge range of stakeholders and experts, contains 114 recommendations. So far as I can see, all of them are compatible with Labour’s stated position and so the report amounts to a blueprint of how to operationalize that position.
Some, though by no means all, of this entails EU agreement, and there are obviously important questions about whether that would be forthcoming, and a particularly valid question about the extent to which Labour are putting too much reliance on using the scheduled 2026 TCA review as an occasion for a more substantial re-negotiation. It certainly isn’t automatically entailed by the review. However, in his recent evidence to the European Parliament, Anton Spisak, a Brexit expert at the Tony Blair Institute, urges that both the EU and the UK would be wise to use it in that way, so as to “begin a more strategic discussion”.
It is at least possible that this view will prevail and, of course, it will still entail negotiation, but much that could have been negotiated had it not been for the Frost-Johnson ‘sovereignty’ line will become possible. Nor is the TCA review the only game in town. The European Political Community (EPoC), established last year and which had its second meeting yesterday, offers the UK a new vehicle for dialogue and cooperation with the rest of the European continent. How it develops remains to be seen but, with enthusiastic and effective participation, which would be unlike Sunak’s approach to it but consistent with Labour’s stated policies, the UK could at the least repair some of the relational and reputational damage of Brexit. Potentially, there would be more substantive outcomes.
All of this could be done without violating Labour’s red lines on rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union. Those red lines don’t prematurely box Labour into a corner because there’s just no way that, simply from an EU perspective, the UK re-joining is viable in the timeframe of the next parliament: we’re in that corner anyway. Equally, going as far as possible within those red lines wouldn’t be ‘re-joining by stealth’ since there would be no re-joining unless there was a referendum. It would all be subsumed within the rubric of ‘closer ties’ and ‘co-operation’, potentially leading to such a referendum, perhaps in Labour’s second term, as Dunt suggests.
This is exactly what Brexiters fear, which is also why the hostility of some remainers/ rejoiners to Labour’s approach is misjudged. At the very least, even if it never gets to that point, the ameliorations Labour are likely to enact will be somewhat better than the current situation, and much better than would be the case if the Tories were re-elected and the Brexit Ultras got their way.
The long road ahead
This isn’t to disown what I said In a recent post, where I argued that the strategic problems posed by the failure of Brexit are not “addressed by Labour’s pledge to make Brexit work, since the solutions don’t exist within the modest tinkering with Brexit that Starmer has committed to. Not until the diagnosis that Brexit is a failure is accompanied by realism and honesty about the causes and solutions can it be addressed”. It’s true that even if what I’ve said about Labour’s position today is right it still fails to meet this test, but the issue is the process and timescale for getting to that point. It is clear that this is going to take some time, so the question is whether a Labour government would take use closer to or further from that point.
On this, to quote Ian Dunt again, “if you put aside the tedious and unconvincing hardline rhetoric, a clear picture emerges. Brexit is collapsing. And Britain is, slowly but surely, drifting back to Europe”. It’s also true that the longer this drift takes, the more damage that will accrue in the meantime. That’s undeniable, even if Labour isn’t able to admit it. But it presumably goes without saying, at least to readers of this blog, that Brexit was a seismic event, so the political road to rebuilding from the earthquake is going to be arduous and slow. Opinion polls showing increasing national regret are vital, but they are a long way from being enough. Like it or not, we’re still barely on the first step of that road but, that being so, the worst thing we can do is refuse to take it because it is only a step. Equally, it’s perfectly right to keep pushing for the next steps, and necessary, too, if they are to be taken.
Still, there is a gradual shift under way. For a long time after the transition period ended, the damage Brexit was causing lurked in the shadows. It’s not that it wasn’t reported, but those reports were often piecemeal in nature, rather than drawn together, and Brexit often featured in the small print as a factor in whatever damage was being discussed rather than as the headlines. That is increasingly changing, with a good example being the two-part series assessing Brexit in this week’s Times newspaper (here and here). There’s far too much in it for me to summarise but, although striving almost painfully at times to be ‘balanced’, the overall picture was undeniably clear, and undeniably negative.
Even without much media prompting, and despite a barrage of pro-Brexit reporting from some parts of the media, as well as much Tory boosterism, the public view has for many months been settling to the view that Brexit was a mistake and has failed. The latest YouGov polling records its lowest-ever level of people thinking Brexit was the right choice (31%) and the joint highest-ever level of those thinking it was a mistake (56%). It also shows 62% think Brexit has been ‘more of a failure’ and just 9% that it has been ‘more of a success’. Inevitably the responses of leave voters and remain voters are rather different, but even amongst leave voters the figures are 37% saying failure and 20% saying success, with a lot who think ‘neither’ (35% of leaver voters compared with just 6% of remain voters).
It's worth pausing to consider just how damning an indictment of Brexit those figures are, so I’ll repeat them. Just 9% of all electors, and only 20% even of those who voted for it, think Brexit is a success. By comparison, a 2019 survey found that 16% of the UK adult population believe that the moon landing was staged.
Brexit betrayed
However, there’s an important difference between those remain voters who think Brexit is a failure, of whom about three-quarters think it was always going to be, and those leave voters who think it is a failure, of whom about three-quarters think that it could have been a success if it had been implemented differently. That isn’t a surprising finding, but it matters because it shows that disillusionment with Brexit ‘as an idea’ is far from universal, and also that there is quite a deep seam of opinion susceptible to a narrative of Brexit ‘betrayal’.
It's a seam which Brexiters were always going to mine assiduously, and a particularly unhinged example was provided by Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn last Friday. It wasn’t just about Brexit, but slurs about ‘salivating remoaners’ with ‘loyalty to the EU’ permeated a wider attack on the “New Establishment” – an apparent nod towards political scientist Matthew Goodwin’s half-baked ‘new Elite’ theory - and its supposed “coup” against the government. But careful readers, if such the Mail has, would notice, even if Littlejohn is too careless a writer to realise it, that this was all rather let down by the observation that “to describe all this as a conspiracy is not entirely accurate [as] it's not co-ordinated.” So not, in fact, a “coup” at all.
This kind of ‘stab in the back’ myth (the on-line version of Littlejohn’s article was actually illustrated with a bloody dagger) has always been the most dangerous potential outcome of Brexit, and Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian recently and rightly warned that what follows from it “may be very dark indeed”. That said, it’s worth remembering that, with or without Brexit, Littlejohn has been squeezing stuff like this out of his anger-tightened sphincter into the eager maw of the Mail’s lavatory bowl for 30 years, on and off. In fact, the kind of aggressive victimhood of a ‘lost country’ his writing exemplifies is a big part of what drove the leave vote. It’s not even the first time he has posited a “coup staged by remainers” – he did so as recently as October 2022 – despite having assured his readers in January 2021 that Brexit was “all over bar the shouting”. You couldn’t make it up, to coin a phrase.
Whilst Littlejohn fulminates, other members of the Brexiter commentariat have adopted a more listless and resigned attitude to how the glorious possibilities of Brexit have been squandered. For example, Fred de Fossard of the Legatum Institute wearily bemoans (£) the government’s failure to pursue a deregulatory agenda, though that was never the automatic consequence even of hard Brexit, and laments the forthcoming introduction of import controls, which was. The “climbdown” on Retained EU Law is also dolefully recounted (“the less said about [it] the better”, de Fossard sighs), but with no recognition of why that, or any of the other foregone ‘opportunities’, have failed to materialize. Indeed, scratch the surface and the explanation offered is a more urbane version of Littlejohn’s, whereby “our entrenched bureaucracy ensures [that voters always] get the same Left-wing, Europhile outcomes”. As a result, “the whole concept of Brexit” is now imperilled, the sometime special adviser to Jacob Rees-Mogg glumly concludes.
Brexit’s last defences
Whether blamed on betrayal, or just lack of political will, these responses at least acknowledge that Brexit hasn’t been a success. But some Brexiters aren’t ready to accept that (and never will be). Instead, individual pieces of economic good news are still trumpeted as evidence that it has been triumph, a recent example being the thuggish Tory MP Lee Anderson's boast that the reported decision by Tata to build a gigafactory in Britain rather than Spain is “another Brexit bonus”. The obvious problem is that something can only be a Brexit benefit if it couldn’t or wouldn’t have happened without Brexit, which isn’t the case in this example. And, of course, even where there are any such benefits, they need to be set against the many costs to justify Brexit as a success overall.
It’s also typical of such claims to invoke a strawman that ‘remainers said there would be no more investment after Brexit’ or ‘remainers said there’d be no more trade with the EU after Brexit’, or the slightly different one that ‘remainers blame all Britain’s economic problems on Brexit’. Needless to say, no serious analyst has ever suggested such things, but even if they had then the most it would mean is that Brexit hasn’t been as bad as some said it would be, or that it may not have been a success, but at least it hasn’t been a failure.
For example, in a Telegraph article (£) the pro-Brexit economist Julian Jessop discusses the impact of Brexit on the services sector. It’s headlined as a “success story”, but the content is less ebullient. “If one thinks back to all the apocalyptic claims made by Remainers, our services industry should be a smoking ruin by now”, he says, conjuring up “doomsday predictions”. But worry not, for “the overall impact has been far less than feared”. It’s hardly an inspiring defence. To be fair, Jessop recognizes this, saying “it is not enough just to say that Brexit has been less damaging than expected. It was supposed to benefit the City. But this is a process.” However, this is just another of the stock defences: the benefits are always just over the horizon.
Still less compelling is the current fashion for comparing UK economic performance with that of Germany (£), or perhaps a wider selection of EU countries (£), selected over this or that timeframe, to argue that the UK’s is no worse, and perhaps slightly better. That fashion seems to have arisen because the IMF, its forecasts suddenly now in favour with the Brexiters who usually disparage them, upgraded its 2023 forecast for the UK from a 0.3% contraction to a 0.4% expansion, whilst forecasting the German economy to shrink by 0.1%.
Even if it made sense to ascribe these (rather negligible) differences to Brexit, it would not be much of an argument because, again, Brexit wasn’t undertaken on the basis that it wouldn’t be a failure but that it would be positively advantageous. But, in any case, it doesn’t make any sense. Whether in the EU or not, the UK’s economy, like any member state, fluctuates at different times and for sometimes different reasons to that of Germany (or any other individual country). In particular, Germany’s current economic difficulties are very obviously connected to its rapid diversification from over-dependence on Russian energy. So, except as a kind of schoolyard ‘what about you?’ taunt, such comparisons tell us nothing one way or the other about Brexit.
The key comparisons are between Brexit UK and how the UK would have performed without Brexit. That inevitably involves a counterfactual model, and the latest version of the best-known such model, the Springford CER ‘doppelgänger’, shows that by June 2022 the UK GDP was 5.5% lower than it would have been without Brexit. That may overestimate the damage or may underestimate it. But (to the best of my knowledge) neither the government nor any of the pro-Brexit economists have ever produced a comparable counterfactual model showing Brexit to have been economically beneficial to the UK. So on this key test there is, at the very least, no evidence of Brexit being an economic success.
What about Labour?
With Brexiters now engaged in the last stages of their attempt to deny Brexit has failed, and the latest stages of developing fantasies about why it has failed, and with the Sunak government in the throes of a protracted death, attention is increasingly turning to the prospects of a Labour administration. Interestingly, Brexiter fears for what that will bring are diametrically opposite to those of many erstwhile remainers. At least some Brexiters are convinced that Labour has “a secret 10-year plan to take Britain back into the EU” (£), whereas some remainers believe that there is no difference at all between Labour and Tory approaches to Brexit. The reality is more complex than either view allows.
Although by definition it’s unprovable either way, it’s absurd to think that Starmer has a ‘secret plan’ to re-join the EU. There’s literally no evidence for it, so Brexiters are wrong and rejoiners are right about that. However, it’s true that the logic of Labour’s position on Brexit – everything it says about the damage of it – points in the direction of eventually re-joining. So, forgetting any idea of a secret plan, the Brexiters are right to suspect that this would be the direction of travel for Labour (though they may be wrong that it will be the point of arrival), and re-joiners are wrong to dismiss the possibility of it going in that direction (though they may be right that it won’t be the point of arrival).
Remainer or re-joiner scepticism about Labour’s intentions was reinforced this week by Keir Starmer’s Express article, in which he again re-iterated Labour’s policy of no return to the EU, single market or customs union, but of wanting to improve the existing UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Most strikingly, and to many remainers most reprehensibly, he referred to the inadequate nature of that deal as meaning that “our European friends and competitors are not just eating our lunch – they’re nicking our dinner money as well”.
The clue to understanding this article is the polling figures I referred to earlier. It was written for the three-quarters of the 37% of Leave voters who believe Brexit has failed because of the way it has been implemented. More particularly, it was written for the erstwhile and potential Labour voters within that group who may be minded to blame that on the Tories. That is an important segment of voters for Labour to speak to, and the Express is a good place to reach it, with the pitch being based on tapping into, but subverting, the narrative of Brexit betrayal. The language may have been ugly and grating, but politics can be a dirty business, or at least it is for those who value winning above high-mindedness.
Of course, there is a tactical dilemma for Labour: in making its appeal to such voters it may lose support elsewhere (£), and there’s some polling evidence that this is happening. But the delicate calculation is presumably that many who respond to things like the Express article by angrily saying ‘I’ll never vote for Labour now’ will, when it comes to it, do so. Or, if not, that the votes lost will be in constituencies where the outcome isn’t affected, whilst those gained prove decisive in other seats. Again, it’s all grubby stuff for the squeamish, but perhaps they should reflect that after fourteen years in opposition squeamishness isn’t something Labour can afford to indulge.
Beneath Labour’s tactics
Tactics aside, what matters is what lies beneath. In his discussion of Starmer’s article, Ian Dunt, who has been consistently acute in his analysis of Brexit from the start, and often very critical of Labour, argues that “in truth, Labour’s Brexit position is far more nuanced, and much more radical, than it first appears. It has been carefully couched in the language of Brexit defence, but the proposals themselves promise a return to a much closer relationship with the Continent. It is the start of a journey back to Europe.”
The key word here is “journey” or, as I’ve put it, ‘direction of travel’. Starmer is cautiously going with the grain of public opinion, with a poll this week suggesting that 53% of voters favour ‘closer ties’ with the EU, and even in strongly vote-leaving areas a plurality doing so. What they mean by it is undoubtedly varied, but a first-term Labour government can be expected to push its possible meanings to the maximum it could without breaking manifesto commitments or suffering too much electoral kickback.
For an important example of what this would mean, in a footnote to my previous post I suggested that the seemingly arcane difference between Swiss-style ‘dynamic alignment’ and New Zealand-style ‘regulatory equivalence’ in Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) standards might become an issue under a Labour government, since Labour’s apparently preferred policy of a New Zealand-style deal had already been rejected by the EU, whilst a Swiss-style deal had been ruled out by Starmer.
I meant that we might hear more about this in years to come, so it was much to my amusement that, just a few hours later, and presumably coincidentally, the Telegraph carried a report (£) ‘revealing’ this EU rejection of a New Zealand-style deal and, with almost heart-stopping irony, quoting David Frost castigating Starmer for “trying to sell unnegotiable fantasy proposals to voters”. In a mirror-image of that critique, some remainers, too, leapt on this report as evidence that Starmer was just reproducing the impossibilities of “cakeism”.
But it is easy to imagine Labour in power, having pledged in their manifesto to negotiate a ‘veterinary agreement with the EU’, agreeing dynamic alignment with the EU. That isn’t cakeism, as it has already been offered by the EU, and the fact that Starmer has previously said he doesn’t want a Swiss-style deal will be irrelevant as he has also said he wants a ‘bespoke deal’ and, almost by definition, any UK-EU deal will be that. Will electors who support ‘closer ties with the EU’ object? Highly unlikely. And if there is a ‘bespoke UK-EU’ SPS dynamic alignment deal then it means the hard Brexit ECJ red line will have been comprehensively breached, allowing it to be breached in all manner of other ways, in relation to trade, security, and participation in various programmes and agencies.
Beneath Labour’s hints
Much of this has already been hinted at by the public statements of Starmer and other senior Labour politicians, including Rachel Reeves and David Lammy. A much more detailed set of proposals for what it could mean in practice was published this week by the UK Trade and Business Commission, an unofficial but highly professional grouping of cross-party MPs, business people and experts. Their report, which is based on extensive evidence-gathering from a huge range of stakeholders and experts, contains 114 recommendations. So far as I can see, all of them are compatible with Labour’s stated position and so the report amounts to a blueprint of how to operationalize that position.
Some, though by no means all, of this entails EU agreement, and there are obviously important questions about whether that would be forthcoming, and a particularly valid question about the extent to which Labour are putting too much reliance on using the scheduled 2026 TCA review as an occasion for a more substantial re-negotiation. It certainly isn’t automatically entailed by the review. However, in his recent evidence to the European Parliament, Anton Spisak, a Brexit expert at the Tony Blair Institute, urges that both the EU and the UK would be wise to use it in that way, so as to “begin a more strategic discussion”.
It is at least possible that this view will prevail and, of course, it will still entail negotiation, but much that could have been negotiated had it not been for the Frost-Johnson ‘sovereignty’ line will become possible. Nor is the TCA review the only game in town. The European Political Community (EPoC), established last year and which had its second meeting yesterday, offers the UK a new vehicle for dialogue and cooperation with the rest of the European continent. How it develops remains to be seen but, with enthusiastic and effective participation, which would be unlike Sunak’s approach to it but consistent with Labour’s stated policies, the UK could at the least repair some of the relational and reputational damage of Brexit. Potentially, there would be more substantive outcomes.
All of this could be done without violating Labour’s red lines on rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union. Those red lines don’t prematurely box Labour into a corner because there’s just no way that, simply from an EU perspective, the UK re-joining is viable in the timeframe of the next parliament: we’re in that corner anyway. Equally, going as far as possible within those red lines wouldn’t be ‘re-joining by stealth’ since there would be no re-joining unless there was a referendum. It would all be subsumed within the rubric of ‘closer ties’ and ‘co-operation’, potentially leading to such a referendum, perhaps in Labour’s second term, as Dunt suggests.
This is exactly what Brexiters fear, which is also why the hostility of some remainers/ rejoiners to Labour’s approach is misjudged. At the very least, even if it never gets to that point, the ameliorations Labour are likely to enact will be somewhat better than the current situation, and much better than would be the case if the Tories were re-elected and the Brexit Ultras got their way.
The long road ahead
This isn’t to disown what I said In a recent post, where I argued that the strategic problems posed by the failure of Brexit are not “addressed by Labour’s pledge to make Brexit work, since the solutions don’t exist within the modest tinkering with Brexit that Starmer has committed to. Not until the diagnosis that Brexit is a failure is accompanied by realism and honesty about the causes and solutions can it be addressed”. It’s true that even if what I’ve said about Labour’s position today is right it still fails to meet this test, but the issue is the process and timescale for getting to that point. It is clear that this is going to take some time, so the question is whether a Labour government would take use closer to or further from that point.
On this, to quote Ian Dunt again, “if you put aside the tedious and unconvincing hardline rhetoric, a clear picture emerges. Brexit is collapsing. And Britain is, slowly but surely, drifting back to Europe”. It’s also true that the longer this drift takes, the more damage that will accrue in the meantime. That’s undeniable, even if Labour isn’t able to admit it. But it presumably goes without saying, at least to readers of this blog, that Brexit was a seismic event, so the political road to rebuilding from the earthquake is going to be arduous and slow. Opinion polls showing increasing national regret are vital, but they are a long way from being enough. Like it or not, we’re still barely on the first step of that road but, that being so, the worst thing we can do is refuse to take it because it is only a step. Equally, it’s perfectly right to keep pushing for the next steps, and necessary, too, if they are to be taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)