When it comes to managing relations with the European Union, Downing Street holds to the adage that no news is good news. In opposition, Keir Starmer saw an electoral advantage in keeping the salience of Europe as low as possible – avoiding needless aggravation of pro-Brexit sensibilities among swing voters. Having secured a massive majority, Labour strategists see no compelling reason to now embrace conspicuous europhilia.
The prime minister’s declared priorities for government, due to be set out in a speech on Thursday, focus on delivering in areas that voters consider most important. Technical adjustments to EU trade do not feature on that list, although they are an important component in the wider ambition to lift economic growth.
It is possible for governments to have discreet priorities alongside more prominent goals. Sir Keir’s ambition of a “reset” of EU relations, focusing first on a security pact, then moving on to economic matters, can be fulfilled without a running commentary from No 10. Up to a point.
But discretion has downsides. Explicit priorities galvanise the machinery of government, which is overstretched and prone to neglect tasks that aren’t labelled as urgent. Issues known to excite Sir Keir are the ones on which progress happens sooner. The absence of pressure around other tasks can mean a lack of strategic thinking about how to achieve them.
There are already signs of this happening to the EU reset. The mere fact of no longer having Conservatives in power changes the calculus of negotiations, to the extent that continental governments and Brussels officials are grateful to deal with ministers from a party that doesn’t despise the European project.
But that goodwill is dissipating as it becomes clear that Sir Keir’s administration hasn’t progressed beyond general aspirations in setting out what it wants . There is also lingering suspicion that the underlying trend of Euroscepticism in British political culture, particularly among the rightwing press, will prove more powerful than Labour’s pro-European sensibilities.
The government’s refusal to talk openly about the possible mutual benefits from a youth mobility scheme is a case in point. It should not be difficult to sell the advantages of such an arrangement to young British voters. But dread of it being perceived – or cynically miscast – as a restoration of pre-Brexit free movement is suffocating the conversation.
One of the frustrations of the Brexit process from the Brussels side was the scale of ignorance in Britain about fundamentals of the EU that made it hard for Theresa May to even begin to sell her deal. When even compromise was treated as aggression there was less reason to make concessions.
If Sir Keir’s government is seen also to flinch from the slightest confrontation with domestic anti-European opinion, the EU side will doubt negotiation can achieve much, and will prioritise other things. The UK can ill afford a slower process of European rapprochement. Donald Trump’s return to the White House next month, bringing a more protectionist trade policy, will impose tough strategic choices on Sir Keir. Then the option of discretion will not be available, and when the prime minister comes to make a pro-European argument in public he will regret not having laid the foundations earlier.
