The opening weeks of the Starmer government have been confusing for Euro-enthusiasts. First, there was the claim by The Times that the government would after all embrace the idea of limited freedom of movement for the young; then that was immediately rebuffed by Starmer himself.
Then, the prime minister claimed to have some other kind of agreement which would achieve a “reset” with the EU, but without affecting Brexit. He called it a “once in a lifetime chance”. It was down to East Anglia Bylines’ Mr Pecksniff to explain in his diary it was nothing of the kind. Mr P wrote last week that Starmer “visited the German chancellor and claimed their agreement will be ‘a boost to our trading relations. But actually no. It will make no difference whatsoever: the rules are agreed with the EU, and the PM is refusing to consider changing them. It is merely a sop to the rising crescendo of criticism over his ‘red lines’.”
What is Starmer’s game?
Only the day after, the German government was forced to correct No.10’s claims, and themselves reiterated that any changes to trade relations are subject to negotiations with the EU.
Starmer seems an honest man, so what is his game? That was the question in the minds of several news media since that gaffe. So by this week we begin to have a clearer picture of what’s going on – even if it remains a puzzle – and can perhaps assess the portents.
We have by now confirmed, then, that any agreement the PM has with Germany has no effect on the essentials of single market and customs union – or of course freedom of movement. So that brings us back to the status quo, only with a few well-meaning party balloons attached. But now we can look behind the claims of No. 10 to assess what other pressures are beginning to build.
A third of Labour MPs are committed to close EU ties
We learn for example that the minister for the constitution and European relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds (who attends cabinet) is gradually putting together a strong team behind him. Now, that must be for some purpose, and we can be quite sure that Sir Keir knows what is going on in his own backyard. So why does he want a strong team dealing with European relations if they are not expected to progress to anything more substantial?
The Labour Movement for Europe (LME) already had 80 members among existing MPs, but has also adopted 47 of the party’s new intake. So we have at least 127 Labour backbenchers – almost a third – who are hustling to make progress. Among them is Liam Conlon (representing Beckenham and Penge), who happens to be the son of the PM’s redoubtable chief of staff, Sue Gray.
Is revisiting Brexit “something for the second term”?
Meanwhile, Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer tells us some ministers are suggesting that realistic moves towards the EU are perhaps “something for the second term”, which you will note directly contradicts the PM’s rigid never-again position. And of course, Sir John Curtice has proved that Labour would have won the election without any help from Brexit voters.
So: where does this leave us? Perhaps the key lies here. Mr Pecksniff’s Diary has explained how the party’s present position was a groupthink bolt hole in which to shelter from the immediate fall-out from the Brexit vote. Ever since, Keir Starmer has continued to dig that hole deeper, as inevitably groupthink would lead him to do. It may look inexplicable now, but remember this was a decision taken when Brexit swept all before it.
Labour’s Brexit fellow travellers outflanked
In those circumstances it might have appeared logical. What wasn’t logical was hanging on to it while the world changed around it. So if we are looking for some underlying cunning plan, a deep strategy which will take the prime minister from his present intractable position to one which publicly embraces the EU goals, we may be mistaken.
More likely, Keir Starmer as leader of the opposition, consulted a tight-knit group of advisers, among some of whom Brexit already had some support. Though circumstances have changed, groupthink doesn’t allow for that. But now, he is subject not only to new advice and new pressures, but new facts. There is little left to sustain his hard Brexit stance, which leaves him marooned. There appears nothing joined up in Starmer’s thinking here: he acted for the best, was too cautious, and now finds himself out on a limb.
In politics, policy usually moves in the direction of least resistance. How long will that take? Well, let’s say, it is difficult to see how the prime minister’s present stance will still hold at the time of the next election in 2029.
