The phrase 'no plans' – that is, minister 'X' says the government has no plans to do policy 'Y' – is the flammable/inflammable of British political messaging. In that, for all intents and purposes, it conveys the same meaning as 'yes, we will absolutely do that that thing at some point'.
For a while now, Labour has insisted it has "no plans" to agree a youth mobility scheme that would give young EU citizens the right to live and work in Britain, and vice-versa. Instead, the party was merely seeking to "improve the UK's working relationship with the EU, within our red lines".
Yet multiple news organisations – most recently, The Times today – have reported that Labour has indeed discussed this with the EU and would be prepared to "give ground" in order to achieve a broader reset of relations. The government later denied The Times' story, with a Downing Street spokesperson adding: “We are not considering this at all.”
Ok, fine. But Labour's election manifesto does state: "We will reset the relationship and seek to deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies." And in any negotiation, in order to get things it wants, the UK will have to give way to the EU on its priorities. One of which is a youth mobility scheme. What makes this stranger is that such a scheme appears to be something of a political freebie for the UK government.
A recent poll by More in Common finds that 58 per cent of respondents think it is a good idea and 10 per cent a bad one. Even Reform voters are in favour. So while there is absolutely no public desire to rejoin the EU at this time, side deals like this are pretty popular. So why isn't a government jam-packed with Remainers jumping on it?
One stumbling block is, as ever, money. Back in April, the European Commission put forward a proposal to start negotiations with the UK on a youth mobility scheme enabling 18-30 year olds to work or, crucially, study in the UK. This would have meant that EU applicants would be treated the same as British students when it comes to university tuition fees, as they were when the UK was a member of the bloc.
Such an eventuality might present a financial threat to our universities, which are not exactly in rude financial health at present. For more, check out this handy primer by Professor Catherine Barnard for UK in a Changing Europe.
This whole saga is a useful if somewhat depressing reminder that even small-ish side deals with the EU come with endless wrangling and costs, and that we should therefore not assume that a Labour government will be magically able to draw the UK back into the orbit of the single market and customs union, just because Keir Starmer, a European to his fingertips, is now the prime minister, and the vibes at meetings are friendlier.
Here it goes. There were benefits (wealth, influence, stability, prestige) and disbenefits (loss of sovereignty) of EU membership. There would have been benefits (ease of trade, Northern Ireland) and disbenefits (being a rule-taker) of leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union. And there are benefits (the theoretical ability to do trade deals) and disbenefits (*gestures broadly at everything*) to Boris Johnson's hard Brexit and thin trade agreement with the EU. What is there to say? It is almost as if life is about give and take.
