The fact that European Union leaders and Britain’s prime minister say that relations should improve is no guarantee that they will. Overcoming structural obstacles to closer collaboration will require a consistent application of political will. Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to Brussels on Wednesday is a significant step in that direction. He held his first official bilateral meeting with the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, as part of the “reset” that Labour promised in its election manifesto.
The prime minister has described his preferred relationship with European partners as “improved”, “ambitious”, “pragmatic” and “mature”. Any combination of those qualities would be welcome, but there is still some mystery surrounding the substance of what Sir Keir has in mind. The most concrete proposal, from the UK side, is a defence and security pact. This would go beyond military cooperation, encompassing energy supplies and combating the climate crisis. That makes sense from a strategic perspective and has the technical advantage of being feasible without amending the 2020 Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA).
There is no appetite in Brussels for a renegotiation of the TCA and Sir Keir has, in any case, ruled out any fundamental reconfiguration of the economic settlement. What adjustments might be made for the sake of easing border frictions and facilitating investment must comply with the prime minister’s pledge never to rejoin the EU single market or customs union. That doesn’t leave much that can dramatically shift the economic dial, but it isn’t a negligible agenda. Britain would still benefit from a veterinary deal, regulatory alignment for some industries, mutual recognition of qualifications, visa facilitation for touring musicians and other such ameliorations of Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit regime.
Measured in terms of service to the UK national interest, Mr Johnson’s deal was an abject failure, but it was very successful at obstructing any future reconciliation. The bridge was thoroughly burned. Even Sir Keir’s relatively modest wishlist touches on matters of single-market integrity that give EU leaders cause to warn London against any renewed attempt at “cherrypicking”.
What Labour might think of as low-hanging fruit for a better deal can still only be picked by hard, technical negotiation. There has to be a clear offer of what the EU might get in return. One item already on the table from the European side is a youth mobility scheme. Restoring opportunities for British students and young people to spend longer periods of time in the rest of Europe in exchange for reciprocal access to the UK should not even be seen as a concession. It would restore a mutual benefit that Brexit withdrew from young people across the continent.
But anything that implies easier transit across borders triggers Labour’s neuralgic anxiety about perceived backsliding on post-Brexit immigration control. Sir Keir will have to overcome that reservation if he is serious about resetting relations. Flinching from a hostile Eurosceptic press might have been a necessary tactic in opposition, but in government, a prime minister has the platform and authority to win arguments and set the agenda.
The foundations of an improved EU-UK relationship are now in place, but building on that requires greater clarity of purpose and courage in expressing the conviction that Britain’s interests are served by restoring ties that should not have been severed in the first place.