Brexit and the current crisis This past week, something extraordinary occurred. The latest Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the job for less than a month, announced a “mini-budget”. This phrase was just the latest example of post-truth politics rearing its ugly head - this “mini-budget” was sweeping and radical and beyond the scope of most supposedly “proper” budgets we’ve had over the last several decades. Taxes for the rich would be slashed, corporation tax rises cancelled. This is beside spending being ramped up separate to this budget that is mini, mostly to subsidise household energy bills.
The 80 seat majority in 2019 was also down to FPTP. It was not an overwhelming victory in the sense that many more seats are now marginal. The LDs on their pro EU ticket did well in additional votes (+4%) but no extra seats meaning a lot of wasted votes but also a bigger split in the anti Tory vote. The need for tactical voting at the next GE is still strong. And in order to stop the longer term rot Starmer needs to reform the electoral system once and for all, no ref but change to make votes matter.
As a citizen and resident of an EU member nation I can understand the wish of many Britons to return very well.
However, I also fully agree that putting anything related to that into a party manifesto at this time would be extremely foolish.
Aside from the potential backlash mentioned by Nick, consider the situation if an attempt at rejoin (in one form or another) were to be rebuffed by the EU.
They might not do that outright, their diplomats are way to skilled for that, but they would certainly make this a rather lengthy process.
Not because they wouldn't want the UK back and not because they wouldn't trust a Labour government, but because they's want to protect against another UK U-turn should Labour not stay in power.
Essentially any form of rejoining, even "just" the Single Market, hinges on the EU (and its member governments) reacquiring confidence that even the Tories have shed their extreme hostility towards them.
That or a change of electoral system that sees the break-up of the two large parties such that coalition are not likely to contain extremist factions such as the ERG.
And I am afraid I can see neither happening anytime soon.
So while it might be massively unsatisfying that Labour is not pushing for a more pro-EU stance, repairing the damage in UK/EU relations through a series of smaller steps is far more likely to improve the overall situation.
"The time to put pressure on Starmer to do more on Europe is the day after he wins the next general election, not any time before."
Unfortunately, that is not how political mandates work. If he doesn't promise to do more on Europe before the election, he has no mandate to do it after the election.
More generally, it seems people delude themselves by either thinking "politicians all break their promises anyway" or that somebody is playing eleven-dimensional chess. In reality, politicians are generally quite open about what they want, be it lower taxes, a greener future, authoritarianism, or more investment in services, and when elected they generally try to achieve exactly what they said they were going to do. The caveats are only that they may mislead or be genuinely mistaken about the predictable outcomes of what they want, e.g. with the claim that leaving the EU or lowering taxes would lead to more prosperity, or they may not have the votes or internal support to achieve all they wanted. But in this case it may be time to consider the possibility that the UK's leader of the opposition doesn't WANT to get closer to the EU or reform the electoral system, for that matter.
Kind of depends on what "doing more" means. If it is limited to not trying to blow up the NI protocol, okay, but that is a low bar. If it is anything that would make any noticeable improvement at all such as single market, he'd need a mandate.
The key to success is growth. NI has access to the EU market, and as well as business booming, inward investment has increased by 71%. So, the real need is not to "get Brexit done", but to get GB growing again. Which mandates we rejoin our largest market, on our doorstep. Britain is too important an economy, for us to be a rule taker in the EU, so we must become a full member again. The sooner the better, instead of all those wasted years, for nothing except long queues and runs on the pound.
The 80 seat majority in 2019 was also down to FPTP. It was not an overwhelming victory in the sense that many more seats are now marginal. The LDs on their pro EU ticket did well in additional votes (+4%) but no extra seats meaning a lot of wasted votes but also a bigger split in the anti Tory vote. The need for tactical voting at the next GE is still strong. And in order to stop the longer term rot Starmer needs to reform the electoral system once and for all, no ref but change to make votes matter.
As a citizen and resident of an EU member nation I can understand the wish of many Britons to return very well.
However, I also fully agree that putting anything related to that into a party manifesto at this time would be extremely foolish.
Aside from the potential backlash mentioned by Nick, consider the situation if an attempt at rejoin (in one form or another) were to be rebuffed by the EU.
They might not do that outright, their diplomats are way to skilled for that, but they would certainly make this a rather lengthy process.
Not because they wouldn't want the UK back and not because they wouldn't trust a Labour government, but because they's want to protect against another UK U-turn should Labour not stay in power.
Essentially any form of rejoining, even "just" the Single Market, hinges on the EU (and its member governments) reacquiring confidence that even the Tories have shed their extreme hostility towards them.
That or a change of electoral system that sees the break-up of the two large parties such that coalition are not likely to contain extremist factions such as the ERG.
And I am afraid I can see neither happening anytime soon.
So while it might be massively unsatisfying that Labour is not pushing for a more pro-EU stance, repairing the damage in UK/EU relations through a series of smaller steps is far more likely to improve the overall situation.
"The time to put pressure on Starmer to do more on Europe is the day after he wins the next general election, not any time before."
Unfortunately, that is not how political mandates work. If he doesn't promise to do more on Europe before the election, he has no mandate to do it after the election.
More generally, it seems people delude themselves by either thinking "politicians all break their promises anyway" or that somebody is playing eleven-dimensional chess. In reality, politicians are generally quite open about what they want, be it lower taxes, a greener future, authoritarianism, or more investment in services, and when elected they generally try to achieve exactly what they said they were going to do. The caveats are only that they may mislead or be genuinely mistaken about the predictable outcomes of what they want, e.g. with the claim that leaving the EU or lowering taxes would lead to more prosperity, or they may not have the votes or internal support to achieve all they wanted. But in this case it may be time to consider the possibility that the UK's leader of the opposition doesn't WANT to get closer to the EU or reform the electoral system, for that matter.
Well, "Make Brexit work" is extremely vague.
Doing more on Europe would be legitimate means of achieving that.
The only thing off limit would be a request to rejoin.
Which would not be realistic for many more reasons so not something the next couple of governments would even contemplate to try.
Kind of depends on what "doing more" means. If it is limited to not trying to blow up the NI protocol, okay, but that is a low bar. If it is anything that would make any noticeable improvement at all such as single market, he'd need a mandate.
Fulfilling the obligations of the Withdrawal Agreement are obviously the most pressing issues.
However the TCA provides a basis for further alignment outside the scope of a full Single Market membership.
The latter is unrealistic in a short term time frame anyway.
The key to success is growth. NI has access to the EU market, and as well as business booming, inward investment has increased by 71%. So, the real need is not to "get Brexit done", but to get GB growing again. Which mandates we rejoin our largest market, on our doorstep. Britain is too important an economy, for us to be a rule taker in the EU, so we must become a full member again. The sooner the better, instead of all those wasted years, for nothing except long queues and runs on the pound.
Hi Nick,
Thank you again for a healthy dose of Brexit realism.
Truly excellent piece, yet again.