Dave Levy examines a Fabian Tract* that falls short on Britain and Europe
“Pressing reset, our future with the EU”, published by the Fabians, is an anthology pamphlet seemingly written primarily for an audience inside the Labour Party who have come to believe that the “24 manifesto promises on trade and the EU were an effective policy promise and a final destination.
It is clear, despite the statements from the Government to the contrary, that the limited reset envisaged by the manifesto has at best stalled, primarily because the UK has not put enough on the table in terms of cash or other offers seen as desirable to the EU and its member states. There have been a series of events over the last month, including the signing of a competition agreement, Reeves’s Mais lecture and Starmer’s speeches over New Year and on the unfortunately dated 1 April statement, which all suggest that a change in policy is coming.
The Greens & Lib Dems are calling for membership of the customs union, which is putting pressure on the Government, and this pamphlet would seem to be part of an effort by the Labour front bench to put a stake in the ground to ensure that if they change the policy, there isn’t a tsunami breaching the infamous red lines.
This ambivalence and fear are most clearly expressed in the foreword by Chris Ward MP, Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office supporting ministers on EU relations. He claims a long-term plan from Keir Starmer to “Make Brexit Work”. He is overly optimistic about the progress of the reset negotiations, and while suggesting that more needs to be on the table, he fails to name any additional mandates to broaden the reset.
Unexpected
What’s unexpected in Stella Creasy’s contribution is not that she argues that a broader agreement is too difficult and will take too long, but that she sees the revised Swiss treaties as a model for better relationships.
She recognises that the reset is unambitious even on economic grounds and that the UK must “shift” on free movement. She acknowledges that there is a high risk of the reset stalling, but that the UK cannot seek to rejoin without offering the EU reassurance that “public support was unshakeable”. What I ask is, is she and the LME doing to make this more real?
Her characterisation of the recently revised Swiss agreement is both positive and powerful, although she concludes with a fearful caveat about immigration, arguing that the Swiss deal has important protections. The disappointing aspect of this contribution is that yet again Creasy fails to argue for a broader popular mandate on trade, freedom of movement and other measures of social solidarity.
Adventurous
The most adventurous contribution comes from Liam Byrne MP, the chair of the Commons” business and trade select committee who argues for an economic security union. He starts with an analysis of global power, identifying the US, Russia and China as large and potential threats to the open, rules-based order. He states that the next summit will be overshadowed by the EU’s project to reorder its complete economy and that exclusion from this new economy, including the “Made in Europe” programmes, will lead to further British decline.
It is for this reason that he states that,
‘This is why an economic security union makes sense. Not as a rebrand of the single market debate or a proxy argument for closer political integration, but as a practical, disciplined response to a new strategic environment- one that neither Britain nor the EU can navigate alone.
He states that such a programme requires a common understanding of risk, a shared vision of industrial sovereignty, energy independence, a defence industrial policy, joint anti-coercion measures, scale-up start-up finance, youth mobility, and dynamic alignment.
Byrne argues that a broader agenda will make agreement easier and that the UK must stop asking for favours and offer a true partnership.
Partnership
Importantly, Jannike Wachowiak of UKICE writes about what the EU wants. He starts by saying that, “Brits spend an inordinate amount of time discussing what they want from the EU. They spend far less, however, pondering what the EU and its member states might want from them.”
He argues that the UK is no longer a priority. Ukraine, relations with the US & China and European competitiveness are. Also, the EU is still waiting for “the occasions to discuss with the UK what, exactly, they have in mind, and how they propose to go about it.”
Wachowiak argues that the consensus within the EU is that the TCA works well for them. He also argues that the EU still maintains an opposition to cherry-picking, and while there is some evidence that this is not as strong as it once was, it is clear that the EU will not agree to a better deal for an ex-member than that offered to other members and members of the EEA.
Again, he argues the UK needs to put more on the table, and it needs to be what the EU and its member states want.
From reading the pamphlet, I have heard that some argue that we can’t rejoin, and the EU has changed. This is true, but it seems we haven’t. We are still acting like a nation of shopkeepers, and unless we raise our ambitions, the EU is making further changes which will make it even harder to participate as a partner 3rd country or even as members unless we decide that membership of these programmes is more beneficial than a Scrooge-like analysis of the costs and benefits of each programme.
The leave campaign won on the basis of a fake sovereignty and an isolationist view of pan-European solidarity. We will only return when the majority of people value the European Union as a source of solidarity and culture, as well as a place to buy and sell stuff. Today’s majority will not be sustained while progressive politicians seek forms of compromise and lack the ambition to take big steps and argue for them.
This is the biggest disappointment in the pamphlet. If Labour doesn’t lead and drop its red lines, the cost of Brexit will increase, and the relationship will stagnate as the EU concentrates on other things.
Jannike Wachowiak and Jude Kirton Darling’s articles make it clear that we need to put more on the table and see the EU as a coalition of values and culture rather than exclusively a trade club or a defence market.
What’s disappointing is that, with the exception of Liam Byrne’s contribution, there’s a total lack of ambition, and there remains significant support for cherry picking. The EU and its member states’ reticence to give more to the country that isn’t prepared to pay its dues seems to be exceedingly justified. Mood was not enough, and if this pamphlet defines the outer limits of Labour’s ambition, I think it’s unlikely that much will be achieved.
Having said that, starting conversations about contributing to the cohesion fund and HMG’s commitment to legislate to allow dynamic alignment are hopeful.
However, without pressure, this government may make verbal compromises with its red lines but express no desire to genuinely commit to the European Union.
Dave Levy is a member of Lewisham West CLP and the Steering Group of Another Europe is Possible
* Pressing Reset: Our Future with the EU, Fabian Society.