Wes Streeting’s Brexit Play: Gamesmanship Over Europe Policy

Brexit, it seems, is back on the agenda for the Labour Party. Wes Streeting wants to rejoin the EU at some point. Andy Burnham previously cited a case for closer ties but has now shifted to a more sceptical stance. Nigel Farage, meanwhile, warns of betrayal.

On one hand, this is all terribly predictable. Winning any Labour leadership race was never going to be possible without staking out a clear and ambitious position on the EU. Most Labour members are remain supporters who regret leaving Europe. Even before the formal contest began, candidates vying for the top job were expected to try to outbid each other.

Andy Burnham’s decision to run for parliament adds an additional complication. Makerfield is a Leave-backing constituency where Reform UK is Labour’s main opponent, so proposing ambitious moves closer to the EU would be incredibly high risk. Hence his switch to a more sceptical stance.

All of which gives Wes Streeting an additional reason to go big on Europe. The hope, presumably, is that Burnham is either driven to say something that alienates voters in Makerfield (which Burnham seems to be avoiding), or forced to adopt a position that makes Labour Party members less likely to support him (which appears to be the chosen direction).

While Burnham navigates that bind, Streeting says as little as possible that commits him to actual action. In his speech to a conference held by the thinktank Progress, the former health secretary spoke in splendidly vague terms about a new “special relationship” with the EU while mentioning he would like to see the UK rejoin one day. That is it. That it was enough to set so many hares running is a tribute to his political nous — but not a signal of intent when it comes to EU policy.

Which is a shame, because a rethink of EU policy is increasingly necessary. Current negotiations covering areas from agriculture to UK participation in the EU’s electricity market have stalled over the EU’s insistence that the youth experience deal — which it sees as key to the whole package — allows EU students to pay domestic fees to attend UK universities.

Even if the two sides find a way to unlock the current impasse, there remains the question of what comes next. The UK government has made clear it wants even closer relations.

But the EU, for its part, has balked at the idea that London gets to pick further bits of the single market with which it wants to align. The view in Brussels is increasingly that the UK either stays where it is or opts for something much bolder.

The UK’s choices are therefore not only increasingly constrained but seemingly at odds with the stipulations of the 2024 manifesto that the UK will not rejoin the single market, customs union, or accept freedom of movement.

So a real debate is necessary: about how far Labour wants to go, whether the red lines as they are should stand, and whether any potential landing zones are actually in the UK’s interest.

This last point is particularly important. Many Labour MPs have spent the past couple of years advocating for a customs union or UK membership in the single market. There is evidence now that they are actually starting to ponder what these alternatives might mean.

A customs union will do precious little to compensate for the economic impact of Brexit, while conceivably tying the UK to EU trade deals over which it has no say. Equally, the single market means allowing the EU to set rules for the UK economy, with London perhaps being consulted but certainly having no vote. What works for Norway will not necessarily do so for the UK, not least because the Norwegian model rests on depoliticisation of the EU issue.

As for membership, what has become clear in negotiations to date is that the EU will play hardball in any talks and extract whatever it can. Membership will come at a price in terms of budgetary contributions and doubtless a commitment to adopt the euro. The talks will be brutal and will not be completed anytime soon. Signing up for this means signing up for many years of difficult negotiations conducted under the glare of Brexiter scrutiny.

So there is much to discuss. The problem is that an open and honest debate is not what we are likely to get. Ten years on from the referendum, Brexit remains domestic political football. Whether speaking to the good people of Makerfield or to party members, Labour politicians have a strong incentive simply to say what their audience wants to hear.

All of which will serve merely to irritate the EU. Having watched consecutive Conservative administrations argue among themselves over Brexit, they are now seeing Labour do the same thing. And like the Conservatives, Labour are doing so with precious little attention paid to what the EU might or might not be willing to give.

Little surprise, then, that the reaction from Brussels is simply a shrug. Let the British play their games. We can talk to them when they have actually decided what they want. Albeit what they want might not be on offer, and what is on offer might not be what they want.

Anand Menon is director of The UK in a Changing Europe and professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London.