Something I'd also emphasise when selling the U-turn is the fact that the world is changing, and not in a way that benefits Brexit. The only kind of world the whole 'Global Britain' idea Brexit was based on, the globalised one, no longer exists, and instead we're entering an era of competition and rivalry between big power blocs. I thought Philip Hammond expressed this point really well recently when he talked about Brexit. The UK is obviously not powerful enough to stop this dynamic from happening, and in a choice between the US, EU and China we have to assess which one is in our best interest, and that's the EU.
I think selling realignment with the EU as a reaction to changing circumstances rather than a realisation that Brexit was dumb is the best option to mollify Leave voters. You could say in 2026 that, from the vantage point of 2016 Brexit made sense but it doesn't work a decade on, even if this isn't what you really believe. Bundled with the expert commission approach, it's also sellable as a national interest decision, which helps ward off accusations of being un-patriotic.
I can see Starmer trying to reduce trade barriers between the UK and EU and perhaps shifting our migration policy to favour the bloc, but a broader push seems fanciful. He won't be announcing anything like that (or even a "commission") ahead of the election, and anything too substantial implemented after would correctly be painted as sneaky by the Tory press, who Starmer will continue to be afraid of throughout his premiership.
I suspect the best remainers can hope for is a gradual reintegration, but the risk of hitting tripwires is substantial. Anything seen to be reopening the issue is politically dangerous for any mainstream politician (and an opportunity for Nigel Farage and friends).
Labours answer to some of the free movement concerns is already in the manifesto
If sectoral collective bargaining/fair pay agreements from the New Deal for Working People are properly implemented, plus English Regional Devolution is taken to its natural conclusion, the problems of undercutting pay in some sectors from the free movement of workers won’t be possible anymore.
Using this approach, a Swiss style deal with preference for job applicants living in a particular region (Switzerland use cantons for this approach) would comply with EU and EFTA free movement requirements.
But Labour should focus on the new deal and regional devolution first to lay the groundwork and start moving us away from the failed Tory economic model that provided fertile ground for Farage & Johnson in the first place.
It’s also I think unlikely to be big bag fix but rather a gradual approach to a closer relationship
I guess my main concern with the whole strategy of dissembling to red wallers about his true intentions is that, as you yourself point out later, "we know that, whatever words come out of his mouth, he's really on our side."
Yes, we know that, but so do the red wallers, the very people at whom this lie is targeted. They may be wrong about Europe but they aren't stupid! What's the point in a noble lie if nobody believes it?
That's a fair point and I guess the broader point of the "noble lie" is that it enables the permission structure thing on a broader scale. As long as nobody points out what's really going on, Leave voters won't have to swallow their pride in order to vote for Labour. Like the polite fiction of everyone in a party pretending a politician is resigning for noble reasons, even when everyone really knows it is because there's a major scandal brewing.
There's no way we will have a deal without freedom of movement. Liechtenstein is tiny, and the other EEA states had to accept it as the price of further economic integration. There's already a lot of consternation in the EU about the integrity of the single market because of Covid and energy-related subsidies, so we won't get 27 countries to agree to a migrant cap. A cap is also impossible because it would have to be reciprocal, and third-country immigration policy is mostly a matter for member states, not the EU as a whole.
What Labour can do is manage the internal politics by offering a lipstick-on-a-pig arrangement. There were quite a few border/immigration controls we could have used as an EU member but didn't, like conducting exit checks at the UK border or limiting how long EU citizens can stay in the country/access some social services without finding a job or otherwise proving their financial self-sufficiency. Since nobody realised that we could have done this all along, I think it's possible to present this as a new, improved arrangement.
Something I'd also emphasise when selling the U-turn is the fact that the world is changing, and not in a way that benefits Brexit. The only kind of world the whole 'Global Britain' idea Brexit was based on, the globalised one, no longer exists, and instead we're entering an era of competition and rivalry between big power blocs. I thought Philip Hammond expressed this point really well recently when he talked about Brexit. The UK is obviously not powerful enough to stop this dynamic from happening, and in a choice between the US, EU and China we have to assess which one is in our best interest, and that's the EU.
I think selling realignment with the EU as a reaction to changing circumstances rather than a realisation that Brexit was dumb is the best option to mollify Leave voters. You could say in 2026 that, from the vantage point of 2016 Brexit made sense but it doesn't work a decade on, even if this isn't what you really believe. Bundled with the expert commission approach, it's also sellable as a national interest decision, which helps ward off accusations of being un-patriotic.
Agree, this is a really great point – and great idea!
"He is the living embodiment of a man who would put a £10 note in the bucket at the farmer’s market that’s collecting for refugees" 😂😂😂
I can see Starmer trying to reduce trade barriers between the UK and EU and perhaps shifting our migration policy to favour the bloc, but a broader push seems fanciful. He won't be announcing anything like that (or even a "commission") ahead of the election, and anything too substantial implemented after would correctly be painted as sneaky by the Tory press, who Starmer will continue to be afraid of throughout his premiership.
I suspect the best remainers can hope for is a gradual reintegration, but the risk of hitting tripwires is substantial. Anything seen to be reopening the issue is politically dangerous for any mainstream politician (and an opportunity for Nigel Farage and friends).
Labours answer to some of the free movement concerns is already in the manifesto
If sectoral collective bargaining/fair pay agreements from the New Deal for Working People are properly implemented, plus English Regional Devolution is taken to its natural conclusion, the problems of undercutting pay in some sectors from the free movement of workers won’t be possible anymore.
Using this approach, a Swiss style deal with preference for job applicants living in a particular region (Switzerland use cantons for this approach) would comply with EU and EFTA free movement requirements.
But Labour should focus on the new deal and regional devolution first to lay the groundwork and start moving us away from the failed Tory economic model that provided fertile ground for Farage & Johnson in the first place.
It’s also I think unlikely to be big bag fix but rather a gradual approach to a closer relationship
I guess my main concern with the whole strategy of dissembling to red wallers about his true intentions is that, as you yourself point out later, "we know that, whatever words come out of his mouth, he's really on our side."
Yes, we know that, but so do the red wallers, the very people at whom this lie is targeted. They may be wrong about Europe but they aren't stupid! What's the point in a noble lie if nobody believes it?
That's a fair point and I guess the broader point of the "noble lie" is that it enables the permission structure thing on a broader scale. As long as nobody points out what's really going on, Leave voters won't have to swallow their pride in order to vote for Labour. Like the polite fiction of everyone in a party pretending a politician is resigning for noble reasons, even when everyone really knows it is because there's a major scandal brewing.
Strictly we *don’t* need to have freedom of movement to be in the EEA. Lietchinstein doesn’t. And I believe historically Austria and others didn’t.
So there’s room for an obvious compromise there.
Now sure we’d probably have to take more EU immigrants than now - but a limit of say 150-175k would be politically very helpful for us.
There's no way we will have a deal without freedom of movement. Liechtenstein is tiny, and the other EEA states had to accept it as the price of further economic integration. There's already a lot of consternation in the EU about the integrity of the single market because of Covid and energy-related subsidies, so we won't get 27 countries to agree to a migrant cap. A cap is also impossible because it would have to be reciprocal, and third-country immigration policy is mostly a matter for member states, not the EU as a whole.
What Labour can do is manage the internal politics by offering a lipstick-on-a-pig arrangement. There were quite a few border/immigration controls we could have used as an EU member but didn't, like conducting exit checks at the UK border or limiting how long EU citizens can stay in the country/access some social services without finding a job or otherwise proving their financial self-sufficiency. Since nobody realised that we could have done this all along, I think it's possible to present this as a new, improved arrangement.