By Anand Menon, the gUardian:
Labour now wants to use the damage from Brexit to combat the threat of Nigel Farage, but the union has bigger fish to fry
Apalpable sense of urgency has emerged in the UK’s approach to relations with the European Union. Ministers are beginning to sound enthusiastic, impatient even. The chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has even pointed to Brexit as a major cause of the country’s economic travails. You might think that this bodes well for prospects of improved UK-EU relations. But – and here’s the rub – enthusiasm on one side is not enough to drive substantive progress.
In opposition, Labour shadow ministers and spokespeople were understandably reluctant to add flesh to
the bones of their intention to “reset” relations with the EU. More detail was provided at the summit in May this year, as the two sides not only signed off a long-term deal on fisheries but declared their intention to negotiate further agreements covering agrifoods, energy and defence
And over the past few weeks, the British tone has shifted still further. I was struck at a conference in Brussels last month by the emphasis placed by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the UK’s minister for EU relations, on the need for rapid progress in these various negotiations.
The change of tone has perhaps been most marked when it comes to the “youth experience scheme”. Labour in opposition was adamant that it had no plans for such a scheme. Yet last month, Thomas-Symonds told the College of Europe that “giving the opportunity for young people to learn and get experience is vital”. Reeves, for her part, publicly called for an “ambitious” scheme, which would be “good for the economy, good for growth and good for business”.
By the time of the Labour party conference, things had ramped up another notch, with Thomas-Symonds claiming he’d “negotiated” an agriculture deal with the EU (spoiler: he hasn’t yet), although it was erroneously reported that this simply needs to be implemented).
There seems to be a pattern here. One of talking up the urgency, of pushing for rapid practical results.
This makes sense in a number of ways. For one thing, the UK government has decided that the economic impacts of Brexit are a stick with which they can beat Nigel Farage. Second, as the budget approaches, the chancellor is anxious to get the Office for Budget Responsibility to factor a youth experience scheme into its forecasts.
And finally, there is genuine time pressure. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism comes into effect in January 2026. This is a climate tool that imposes a tax on imports, such as steel and glass, produced using carbon-intensive methods. Without an agreement (and there are rumours of one in the offing), UK exports to the EU face the prospect of tariffs. Equally, if no deal is struck soon on UK access to the EU’s new defence funding scheme, Security Action for Europe (Safe), the UK risks missing out on being able to bid in the first round of contracts.
Sadly, however, London’s enthusiasm will not, in and of itself, guarantee progress. Partly, this is because there are genuine practical hurdles to be overcome. On agriculture and emissions, the scope of regulatory alignment may be a stumbling block. Will the EU insist on alignment with its rules on issues such as gene editing? Will the UK have to adhere to the EU’s market stability mechanism on carbon pricing?
On youth mobility, the two sides are still some way apart when it comes to issues such as the fees payable and the total numbers involved.
Practical differences aside, the EU does not share the sense of urgency now manifested by London. The economic stakes are lower for Brussels, and EU governments have a whole load of other priorities. The EU itself has bigger fish to fry (having secured access to Britain’s).
Meanwhile London’s newfound enthusiasm for youth mobility could even backfire. We know this is a
central ask for Brussels. Yet if a scheme is agreed, what is to say the EU won’t drag its feet on other dossiers it doesn’t see as priorities? Sequencing matters, as David Davis found to his cost during the Brexit negotiations.
Looking ahead, the logic of the government’s new position – that Brexit is damaging the economy and necessitating tax rises – is to attempt to rub away other sources of trade friction. There are hints that the UK is willing to go much further and to consider, as Reeves suggested in opposition, aligning automatically with EU rules in sectors such as chemicals.
Unfortunately, this is not something the EU is likely to accept. There is no appetite among most member states for doing the UK a favour and helping it thrive outside the bloc. As one senior German official put it to me: “We do not want to help make Brexit work.” With populist parties demanding less subservience to Brussels, a Brexit Britain that is thriving economically is not something European governments are keen to facilitate.
Keir Starmer’s EU “reset” has not only helped rebuild close ties with European allies but seemingly become a government priority for driving growth. Sadly, however there are two sides to a negotiation and the danger now is that enthusiasm may give way to frustration as the UK comes to realise that its priorities are not necessarily shared.
