Labour’s election promise to respect Brexit and at the same time reset our relations with the EU was easy to make. Keir Starmer must have realised that riding both these horses at the same time might be troublesome, but with an election to win he doubtless hoped for the best.
If so, he has been quickly disabused. Following tentative approaches to Brussels, it is clear that the Prime Minister faces a bleak choice: either come back with not much to show, or agree to a return of Euro-control over large swathes of UK life which the electorate will see for precisely for what it is; in name, if not in substance: the abandonment of much of Brexit.
Starmer has two choices: stall, or give in
The difficulty is that each side wants what the other is highly unlikely to give. The PM is desperate to woo UK business by easing bureaucracy on imports and exports, particularly of food and plants. Rational, perhaps: both EU and UK regulations are reputable and each side could simply agree to accept the other’s certification.
But the present situation gives Europe a nice bit of de facto protectionism and an opportunity for pressure on the UK (not to mention devilment in Northern Ireland). Why give that up? So, too, with migration: Starmer may want an agreement for the return of small boat migrants, but Europe is perfectly happy for its unwanted entrants to end up as our problem, and sees no reason to help us.
Europe for its part wishes the current temporary arrangement on fishing, highly favourable to EU boats but due for phase-out, to be made permanent. It wants Britain to readmit complete EU control once again over food safety and some environmental matters, abandoning its power to legislate independently and returning ultimate control to the EU court of justice. It also seeks extensive rights to live and work here for Europeans under 30. Even the Labour party’s extraordinarily glib publicity machine would be hard put to portray a concession on any of these points as anything other than a betrayal of Brexit and a de facto return to free movement.
Europe’s hardball stance here is understandable. It senses that Labour is not very united, and that Starmer’s administration is weak: not electorally weak (at least for the moment), but rather indolent, pusillanimous and likely to concede a fair amount for a quiet life and the odd headline about defusing tensions. The EU Commission also knows perfectly well that most Labour MPs and a large majority of the cabinet are at bottom Brexit-sceptics if not overt Rejoiners. As and when negotiations start next year, there is no doubt that the Eurocrats will have been briefed carefully on how to dominate the conversation and keep our people on the back foot.
Faced with this, Starmer has two choices: stall, or give in. His best chance of salvaging something is to do the former. There are some areas where there is a decent chance of agreement and little likelihood of pushback: for example, dry-as-dust matters like mutual recognition of professional qualifications. So too some elements of security and police cooperation through such organisations as Europol and access to European databases.
And, of course, Brussels might well be attracted by an offer to move closer on defence and national security. Europe is painfully aware that the US is demanding, quite understandably, that it contribute more to its own defence. Its forward planners also know that the EU will have to play a part in any peace arrangement in Ukraine: UK participation as a defence hard hitter would be invaluable.
Agreement here, with some vague commitment to future dialogue, could well attract Starmer. He would gain something; he would avoid serious further unpopularity at home; and he could plausibly sell Labour as a party seeking sensible working relations with Brussels.
On the other hand, it is by no means impossible that Starmer takes a higher risk strategy and make a raft of concessions: on fishing, say, possibly on food standards and perhaps even a limited degree of youth free movement. He could still put himself forward as a peacemaker who had nevertheless guarded Britain’s corner. This might be tempting; it would inwardly please a good number in his party and, after all, Labour does not have to fight an election until 2029.
But not only would this be very bad for the country; the ultimate hazard for Labour would be substantial. There is a limit to how far a Labour party with a so-far dismal performance in office can continue to rely on high-sounding words to convince an electorate that increasingly regards Starmer with a mixture of scepticism and outright contempt.
Starmer, who is far from stupid, must be beginning to realise this now. This provides us with the best hope that next year he will see discretion as the better part of valour and come back with something, but nothing very earth-shattering, from Brussels.
Comments