Keir Starmer’s EU “reset” failed to convince

Billed as a “make-or-break" moment following a disastrous set of local and devolved election results, Keir Stamer placed UK relations with the EU at the heart of Monday’s speech. Those following the evolution of Labour policy toward the EU closely will have noted two changes.  

First, the prime minister was more willing to call out the failure of Brexit to deliver on the economy, on migration or on security. And he upped his criticism of Nigel Farage – from references to “snake-oil salesmen” in his speech at last year’s party conference, he now accused the Reform UK leader of exiting the scene rather than hanging around to make Brexit work (though it is far from clear how Farage could have done this, given he was not in parliament at the relevant time and the Conservatives were not asking UKIP or the Brexit party for support in parliament since they were not represented there). “He is not just a grifter, he is a chancer”, said Starmer. The government will have more opportunities to make its case against Brexit when parliament debates the European Partnership Bill announced in the King’s Speech, which will give the government powers to “dynamically align” with EU regulations once agreement is reached as part of last year’s reset.  

The other notable change was the warm embrace of the youth experience scheme being negotiated, now presented as restoring opportunities to young people to broaden their horizons denied by Brexit. What Starmer did not do is explain the government’s trajectory from outright opposition when the EU’s negotiating mandate on youth mobility first hit the headlines in spring 2024 to reluctant foot-dragging through the early months in government, to caveated inclusion in last year’s Common Understanding. Nor did he give any indication of what this scheme might look like – not least on whether the UK was still insisting on caps and whether he had given ground on EU demands for their students to only pay domestic student fees. His conversion would have been more convincing if he had explained why he had changed his mind – if he even realises that he has. Otherwise, that was very much that.

Starmer’s speech had little new of note on EU relations

Starmer can already point to success in putting relations with the EU on a much more amicable footing. He may be nearing the conclusion of successful negotiations on creating a common sanitary and phytosanitary area, making agrifood exports easier at the price of accepting dynamic alignment. He may even be making progress on linking ETS schemes and securing reintegration in the EU electricity market. But Starmer did not use his speech to set out progress reports on either.  

Nor did he offer anything more than vague words on where the relationship might go next at a summit which still lacks a firm date. Instead he said that “this Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe,” before failing to give any indication of what that might look like. He did not set out how he might seek to build defence cooperation, stymied by the failure last year to agree acceptable terms for UK participation in the EU’s flagship defence procurement programme. He did not follow up the chancellor’s commitment to default to alignment on regulation with ideas for new sectors where the UK might seek to do that, or with any thoughts on how he might persuade the EU to agree to negotiate on those. Crucially he also gave no hint of any softening of any manifesto red lines on the relationship – on membership of the single market, a customs union and on freedom of movement (beyond youth experience).  

With no substance, it is hard to set a new direction

Starmer claimed he wanted to put Britain “at the heart of Europe”. Previous prime ministers set that as a goal too – but it proved hard to turn rhetoric into reality even as a member state. Outside it looks impossible, even if desirable.  

It may be too late for Keir Starmer to come up with substantive ideas for where the relationship with the EU goes next. But if this prime minister, or his successor, genuinely wants to move forward, then the EU will need to be presented with a compelling offer on security and trade. There is, as yet, no sign that that thinking is taking place within government – but the time when warm words and the absence of active hostility are sufficient to hail advances is long gone.