Labour's Europe deal is a trap for Brexiteers
Photo byThe Europe question is never settled; it just re-emerges in a new form. Labour knows this better than most parties. In 1975, under Harold Wilson, it held a referendum to resolve the UK's European Economic Community membership. Eight years later, it advocated withdrawal without a vote at all. By 1988, as British trade unionists sang 'Frère Jacques' in tribute to President Delors of the European Commission, Labour had embraced Europe as a bulwark against Thatcherism.
Keir Starmer's own career mirrors these convulsions. He was a pro-European of the Delors age – embracing the project as a vehicle to advance human rights and social legislation. In 2018, with the unscripted declaration that 'nobody is ruling out Remain as an option', he established himself as a leader-in-waiting. Yet two years later, in an act of ruthless pragmatism, Starmer whipped Labour MPs to vote for Boris Johnson's deal.
Then, as before, some insisted that the Europe question had been resolved. But this was never likely to prove the case for long. In spite of Johnson's 2019 landslide victory, Brexit soon became a moribund cause. The political and economic winds driving integration have only grown stronger. When Kemi Badenoch spoke in the House of Commons of our 'hard-won Brexit freedoms', she was met with laughter from across the Labour benches – a reflection of the disrepute into which the project has fallen.
Leavers used to take pride in asserting that the elites were on the wrong side of the people, but they now find this charge thrown back at them. Just 30 per cent of voters now believe the UK was right to leave the EU and only 11 per cent believe the project has been a success. Sixty-four per cent favour a closer relationship with Europe, while 55 per cent are outright Rejoiners. Here is why No 10 does not fear the cries of 'Brexit betrayal' from recalcitrant Leavers. For many voters, Labour's 'reset' is still too hard rather than too soft.
The deal agreed this morning includes a new defence and security partnership (with UK firms to gain access to a £150bn EU rearmament fund), a reduction in checks on British produce sold in Europe, the merger of the UK and European emissions-trading schemes and the opening of e-passport gates to British tourists (ending perhaps the most visible sign of Brexit). Negotiations over a youth mobility scheme, including the UK rejoining the Erasmus student exchange programme, will continue. Starmer's most notable concession was granting EU fishing boats access to British waters for 12 years, meaning these rights will now expire in 2038 (the UK had sought just a four- or five-year extension).
It is economics, as well as politics, that is pushing Britain back towards Europe. In recent months, Rachel Reeves, traditionally one of the cabinet's most Eurosceptic members, has grown increasingly confident in her attacks on the 'failed Brexit deal'. It is not hard to see why – the EU, as she has noted, remains by far the UK's largest trading partner (accounting for 41 per cent of British exports and 51 per cent of imports). Here is a chance for the Chancellor to ease her nightmarish fiscal calculations (with the Office for Budget Responsibility potentially 'scoring' the new deal as a boost to future GDP growth).
Labour aides also see a potent political dividing line with Reform and the Tories. 'If they oppose the deal, they're supporting job cuts and barriers to trade,' a Reeves adviser told me. Chancellors always use the 'baseline' to their advantage – a Labour incumbent will warn that a Conservative government would mean deeper spending cuts; a Tory incumbent will warn that a Labour government would mean higher tax rises. Now, with much of British business on her side, Reeves will be able to argue that a new administration would jeopardise improved trade deals. While her Brexiteer opponents cry betrayal, the Chancellor will emphasise growth and stability.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
On this, the government believes it has an increasingly strong story to tell. 'If you add together the India deal, the America deal and the European deal, you can clearly see a UK government improving the terms of trade at a rapid clip,' a senior source told me.
In another political universe, Leavers would be claiming this flurry of deals as a 'Brexit benefit', offering sceptical but constructive opposition. But as they speak only of British failure, Labour believes it can trap Reform and the Tories on the wrong side of both voters and business.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here.
[See also: Keir Starmer's 'island of strangers']
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edinburgh Reporter
21 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Edinburgh Council refuses to ban arms testing in city parks
An Edinburgh councillor has spoken out after a city committee voted not to ban arms firms from testing military equipment in city parks. In December 2024, arms manufacturer Leonardo was given permission to test communications equipment in the Braid Hills. Green councillor Ben Parker said he was 'disappointed' that councillors chose to not back his motion, which would have seen the practice banned. He continued: 'Today, Councillors had a chance to stand up for peace and instead chose inaction. 'Despite community objections and a clear moral imperative, the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have voted to continue to allow arms manufacturers to test their equipment in our beautiful, publicly owned, green spaces. 'The Council has previously taken a strong stance on opposing advertising and sponsorship from arms manufacturers, and it is completely hypocritical to then allow these same companies to use our beautiful public space to test their equipment. 'At a time when we are witnessing the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, we should not be supporting companies who profit from arms sales to the Israeli Government in any way.' Cllr Parker had originally put the motion forward for discussion at May's full council meeting, but an amendment by the Liberal Democrat group sent it to the Culture and Communities Committee for discussion. In a deputation to the committee, he urged councillors to take a stand on the issue, drawing comparisons to the city's Labour council taking a stand against apartheid during the 1986 Commonwealth Games held in the city. That year's games were protested widely, and boycotted by 26 nations, due to the UK Government's relationship with the then white-minority government in South Africa. Liberal Democrat councillor Fiona Bennett said: 'I have been to Iraq twice, once in 2018 with an NGO I'm very closely involved with and again in 2019 with the UN supporting victims of ISIS. 'I saw first-hand devastation throughout northern Iraq and in particular in Mosul – images that will never leave me, and images that will haunt me, for the rest of my life. 'The events unfolding around the world right now are harrowing. And I know people on the ground in Gaza right now, I can't bear what they're telling me. 'This is incredibly difficult, we're being forced to confront balancing our ethical values and responsibilities with the very real fragility of our national security. 'This is the most fragile and uncertain political, global landscape in my lifetime, and I really worry about the future our daughters have in front of them. 'So when we talk about banning testing, are we saying there should be no such testing anywhere in the UK? 'And if so, are we inadvertently undermining our own ability to defend ourselves at a time when global threats are growing and becoming even more complex?' Councillors narrowly supported an amended version of the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrat group, which did not pursue a ban. Instead, it referenced the city's draft parks management plan, which empowers council officers to ban any activity which will or could 'endanger' any person or property. By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
Don't believe the spin – Davy Russell suffered no 'classism'
DAVY Russell came blinking into the sunlight, wiping soot from his sleeves on Friday morning. As he emerged from Lanarkshire's last remaining coal pit, the injuries of having suffered through 'classist' abuse during the Hamilton by-election campaign were nothing compared with the honour that awaited him above ground. He, Davy Russell, was to become a member of the Scottish Parliament. His heart quickened at the thought of Edinburgh's bright lights. Auld Reekie! Would the empty suits understand a bowls-playing, karaoke-crooning, shandy-sipping, authentic, real-deal guy such as he? I could go on. This is the story that Scottish Labour and some dewy-eyed commentators would have you believe. But Russell is no working-class hero. By all accounts, he is a pillar of the community in his new constituency of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. This does not make him Keir Hardie reincarnate, leading the charge against the condescension of the Holyrood elite. (Image: Craig Foy - SNS Group) Russell had a long career as a top bureaucrat in local government, becoming chums with the Glasgow Labour old boys during their time at the top in Scotland's biggest city. He used to run a business with former Rangers captain Barry Ferguson (above) and Asim Sarwar, brother of Anas. His style seems more wining and dining in the Ibrox directors' box than watching the dog racing before a few pints and a punch up down the local, or whatever similarly patronising image of 'working-class leisure pursuits' Anas Sarwar has in mind. Most pundits, myself included, had their arses handed to them on Friday morning after calling the Hamilton by-election badly wrong. READ MORE: How did Labour win the Hamilton by-election with an 'invisible man' candidate? But this was an SNP loss, with their vote halving, not a Labour victory, given they were down 3620 votes on their losing score in 2021. Russell's was a local campaign for local people, though the high drama of an unpredictable campaign – in Morgan McSweeney's back garden – set tongues wagging in Westminster, too. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (below) and the Prime Minister both made election pitches on the floor of the House of Commons on Wednesday, each warning about the SNP's plans to downgrade the Wishaw neonatal unit. Labour's spin machine has it that it is this focus on local issues – apparently Russell spent the night before the vote addressing the Hamilton Accies Supporters Association – wot won it. If that's the case, then McSweeney's strategy which took Labour to victory on the tightest vote efficiency ever last year is very much still in play. It's less that Russell won people around to Labour; more that he managed to get most of the people who backed them last time around to do so again while SNP support collapsed. Scottish Labour are of course perfectly entitled to make the argument that voters rejected the SNP – they did – but not to try to silence their critics by accusing them of 'classism', as Sarwar did at the count in Hamilton. Criticism was levelled at Russell in the first instance because he ducked media scrutiny and because videos posted by Scottish Labour gave the impression he could barely say his own name without difficulty. It is not 'elitist' or 'classist' to point out that having some rhetorical skill may be an advantage to an aspiring politician. It is elitist to suggest that the reason someone comes across as thick is because they are from a working-class town in Scotland. And that's the argument that Hutchesons'-educated Sarwar went with. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to you email inbox every Friday at 6pm for FREE by clicking here.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Between ‘rollover UK' and ‘retaliatory China': will EU hardball secure trade deal with US?
In Brussels' corridors of power, quiet optimism is growing that the EU's hardball strategy to secure a US trade deal is working. While Britain quickly moved to try to cushion the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs with a deal agreed last month – and US-Chinese relations are a tit-for-tat situation – the EU has taken a different stance. 'We are positioning ourselves between 'rollover UK' and 'retaliatory China',' said a Brussels source. The stakes are not just the £706bn in transatlantic trade between the EU and US but the fallout from what diplomats and businesses say is a dangerous assault on the global rules-based system that governs western democracy. 'The only thing that appeals to Trump is power. Amid all the nausea and uncertainty here, there is a significant chance the EU will go the whole way and not do a deal,' said a diplomat in the Belgian capital. 'If the EU doesn't stand up to Trump or demand the rigours of rules, the question will be: what is left of the international rules based system?' the source added, noting the risk to employment rights, free speech, social welfare and public care. The EU's steadfast strategy is high-risk, and has weeks to play out before the 90-day pause in Trump's threat to impose 20% tariffs on all EU imports ends in July. He has already slapped a 10% tariff on all exports, with more on autos and steel, which this week went to 50%. 'If in the end, if we are the only ones on the pitch, people will start to say we should have been more like the Chinese,' said one EU official, with demands for retaliation expected to arise 'very quickly from member states'. The biggest pothole in what threatens to be a bumpy road ahead may be a Nato summit on 24 June when Trump, who has shown visceral antipathy towards the EU, may find fault in what he considers freeloading allies. Right now, EU member states are united in their resolve not to capitulate in the face of his demands, which include the removal of non-tariff barriers such as food standards. 'What the US is doing has brought us together, and there's a sense of urgency of that cooperation within the 27 that is quite important,' says one diplomat. There is even a growing acceptance that US tariffs of more than 10% are a long-term reality. 'Ideally less than 10%, so it doesn't look like we have rolled over,' says one Brussels official. Before Trump took office for the second time the average tariff on US imports in the EU was about 2.5%. The EU's chief negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, said on multiple occasions this week that he was 'optimistic' a deal would be done, but back at base, trade war preparations continue. 'We are keeping the gun on the shelf. We don't want to use it, but we want them to know it is there,' said one diplomat. Šefčovič said on Friday he had held another call with the US secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick. 'Our time and effort fully invested, as delivering forward-looking solutions remains a top EU priority. Staying in permanent contact,' he wrote on X. Meanwhile, twin talks took place this week in Paris at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in Washington with a team of EU officials led by Tomas Baert, trade adviser to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. Those talks helped 'clean the slate, clear the table', Šefčovič told a conference organised by the European Policy Centre, a thinktank, on Thursday in Brussels. He added that he had also discussed the continued threat of sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors with the US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris. Šefčovič said his message was that the US and the EU had mutual interests in re-industrialisation on both sides of the Atlantic, and in minimising China's unstoppable rise in key sectors such as electric vehicles and steel. 'Any obstacle in the middle of the Atlantic would simply make them less competitive and more vulnerable. This is the diplomatic, political but also very technical discussions we are having,' he said. Up to now negotiations have been somewhat hampered by the parallel universe occupied by the US president, and White House and EU officials. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Last month, Trump, out of the blue, threatened and then unthreatened to slap a 50% tariff on all EU imports, claiming Brussels was dragging its feet 'to put it mildly'. 'This came as a surprise to Maroš, because he had been in talks since February,' said one source. 'But because this is an imperial court, it is the emperor who will decide when talks are happening.' The volatility in the transatlantic relationship on European business is unprecedented. 'I have been here 10 years and I have never seen this level of nervousness, not during the pandemic, not after the invasion of Ukraine,' said a director at one trade group representing dozens of multinationals in Brussels, who declined to be named. Luisa Santos, the deputy director general at Confederation of Business Europe, which represents 42 national business federations, said trade would, like water, find its course but investment could prove the collateral damage. 'The whole basis of trade is WTO [World Trade Organization] rules,' she said. 'We agreed on the rules and they were accepted the consequences. Now the rule is the power game: 'I will impose what I think is best for me, and the bigger players with more power determine the rules and that is a huge change.' Santos added: 'I think the biggest shock in Europe is that we were supposed to be the traditional allies. But now we are basically put on the same basket as China.' Kyle Martin, the vice-president of European affairs at the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, whose members include Boeing and Airbus, said tariffs would end a 45-year-old US-EU agreement that aviation construction, which relies on a global supply chain, was duty-free. A Boeing 787 gets its front fuselage from Italy, its wings from Japan and doors from France, with assembly at home in Seattle, he pointed out. 'I don't see this having a positive [outcome] for either Boeing or Airbus or any other manufacturer. Everyone will be impacted because everyone's got an interconnected supply chain.' But while negotiations with the US continue, new EU agreements with India, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa and Australia are also on the cards. Ultimately it is the profound shift in the world order that is bothering many in Brussels. The US was behaving 'like a very unevolved state', said one EU source, like a developing country that relied on customs duties for national revenue in the absence of income tax, corporate tax and VAT. 'Maybe this is what Trump wants, a smaller, leaner weaker state where everybody has to pay for themselves,' they said.
