The Centre for European Reform explains that it may be more difficult than Labour thinks.
On the first point, the EU already has a system of automatic mutual recognition of qualifications for a limited number of regulated professions like architects, nurses, pharmacists, doctors, and dentists, as well as semi-automatic recognition for several other professions. However, this system has only been extended to Switzerland and the European Economic Area (EEA), because the EU directives that allow it are connected to freedom of movement.
Something will have to give there, and it won't be on the EU side.
The CER paper goes on:
"The TCA does include a framework for professional bodies and authorities to negotiate mutual recognition of qualifications sector by sector, which is similar to frameworks the EU has included in other FTAs. The only example of these frameworks leading to mutual recognition is an agreement with Canada for architects.
"That agreement took two years to negotiate and is semi-automatic in that architects do not need to prove their ability, but still need to go through a simplified registration process to practice. Having to negotiate sector by sector means negotiations are likely to be long and complex and might not reduce barriers to the same extent as if the UK were in the EU."
On touring visas for musicians, CER says any agreement will almost certainly have no impact on carnets because these are needed to comply with international conventions to reduce paperwork for equipment that temporarily crosses borders - the ones Brexit created. It is the cost and delays associated with these carnets which are the biggest problem and that is unlikely to change.
Next, the chance of a veterinary agreement to reduce or eliminate the need for sanitary and phytosanitary checks (SPS) for food and agricultural products, is also likely to prove difficult politically.
Labour haven't detailed exactly what they want but the choices are apparently quite limited. Some countries like New Zealand have negotiated reduced checks, but it is a regime that the EU deems justified only for more remote partners with fewer and larger shipments of lower-risk goods. In short not nations like Britain.
For such a close partner with thousands of small shipments, the removal of checks would require full harmonisation with relevant single market rules, including a commitment to follow the EU when it changes its rules - AKA dynamic alignment - and a role for the European Court of Justice.
Starmer hasn't set a red line on that (unlike the Tories) and may well think it a price worth paying, but if he's OK with alignment on food what about everything else? The CER says:
"This raises the question: if the UK can align on SPS regulation, why not on technical barriers to trade for other goods, particularly in areas where the UK has in practice shown little willingness to diverge?
"The EU REACH regulation on chemicals has, for example, largely been duplicated at great expense with UK REACH. The UK conformity marking UKCA is for all intents and purposes identical to the CE marking, which the UK continues to accept. The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a special European Commission Decision Reliance Procedure that fast-tracks medicines for approval if they have already been approved in the EU.
There is a long list of sectors where the UK has been willing to increase compliance costs for technical regulations with a view to preserving the sovereign capacity to diverge, while showing no willingness or ability to do so in practice."
I think this sets out what Labour's dilemma will be.
Starmer’s Brexit red lines will soon be erased in my opinion. After the election Labour will have no earthly reason to stick to them and will come under a lot of pressure to reverse Brexit.
It’s hard to see what purpose would be served by stubbornly defending your opponent's failed and unpopular policy when it’s holding back the very growth you need to win the next election. Personally, I don't see one and I defy anybody to suggest what it might be.
Why become embroiled in a conspiracy to avoid the electorate learning the truth about Brexit? What possible upside is there for Labour in doing that?
Telling voters the truth may have fallen out of fashion under the Tories out of necessity, but there is no need for the opposition to perpetuate it.
If Labour can change the narrative, and pin the blame for our low growth where it belongs, onto Brexit and the Tories it would give them an ideal policy platform for the next election. I suspect such a move would accelerate the polling which already shows most voters think Brexit has been a terrible mistake.
The next Tory leader would be forced either to defend an unpopular policy, making them unelectable or admit their flagship policy for the last ten years was a mistake, suggesting they were simply incompetent and so also rendering them unelectable.
David Gauke has a good article in The New Statesman suggesting the Tory party is headed for a catastrophe or oblivion. I think he's right.
