You can understand his MPs getting nervous. Many are set to lose their seats in three years or so. Starmer is a manager, not a leader. The two things are not the same and far from it.
However, and here’s the central issue that Shrimsley perceptively identifies, if Starmer were to do a sudden about-face and declare he’s going to ditch Brexit, he would face accusations of doing it out of political expediency rather than conviction. It’s just as hard for Starmer to switch sides now as it would be for Farage to become pro-European.
I’ve always thought that pledging to reverse Brexit would put Farage on the back foot, forcing him to defend a thoroughly unpopular policy, of which he was the great architect. It is the essential club to beat him with, metaphorically, of course.
But Starmer is probably the least good advocate to do it. He’s been defending Brexit for eighteen months and stubbornly refusing to confront the problems. He just doesn’t seem to believe in Britain’s role in Europe, or the single market and his stance makes it impossible for him to take up the cudgel against Farage in any effective way. As Shrimsley puts it:
“The danger of a new Brexit strategy led by Starmer is that, after all his previous statements on the topic, it will seem to be motivated less by conviction than convenience. If Farage or the Conservatives have to fight for Brexit again, Starmer is the opponent they would probably choose.”
And here the point….”If Labour chooses this fight — and there are reasons to think it will — someone else will need to lead the charge.”
I’m sorry to say that I think he’s right. Starmer is a decent, honest man, but a plodder. He has effectively destroyed his own premiership by timidity. Brexit has taken another scalp, this time quite needlessly. Another prime minister has misread the difficulty of conjuring success out of Brexit. The economy unexpectedly shrank in October, the exact opposite of what he is trying to achieve.
In 2024, Starmer was given a huge parliamentary majority and a public totally disillusioned with Brexit. After the next election, there is no guarantee of the former, and we could be back to 2018, with MPs evenly divided on the issue and paralysis being the result Starmer has squandered a golden opportunity. All he had to do was tell the truth from the beginning. Brexit has been a disaster, and he could have looked visionary had he led public opinion rather than reluctantly following it.
Even Kemi Badenoch is looking as if she could outflank him. Last week, the Tory leader delivered a speech on welfare. In it, she appeared to concede Brexit was a 'foolish' policy.
Britain could take the blows it was receiving, she said: “For all that is going wrong now, and let’s be honest has gone wrong in the past, nations can absorb shocks. The financial crisis, Brexit, Covid. Countries with strong institutions and productive people do not collapse overnight. Even foolish policies take time to do real, lasting damage.” (8.06 minutes in)
Brexit, I seem to remember, was supposed to release Britain from the dead hand of Brussels, and we would 'prosper like never before once out of the clutches of those dastardly Eurocrats. Now the leader of the party that gave us Brexit is openly admitting it delivered a 'shock' of the same scale as the financial crisis or a global pandemic. Imagine that on the side of the red bus, eh? So, yes, it was a 'foolish' not to say stupid policy, what a pity she didn't say it at the time.
Some, perhaps most, of the recent shift is driven by Trump. His new National Security Strategy is overtly anti-European, and the Kremlin has actually welcomed it as an ‘alignment’ with their own thinking. Russia has sought to destroy the EU to bring closer their long-dreamed-of policy of dominating European affairs and bringing about a resurrected Soviet Union.
What is behind the dumping of eight decades of US policy towards Europe? As I recall, US administrations welcomed the formation of the EU as a bulwark against Russian expansion.
Now all that has gone because Trump cannot tolerate a successful and socially liberal Europe. It has to fail; it represents a constant rejection of his own crazy belief that countries need all-powerful leaders, preferably corrupt white men, running brutal dictatorships to succeed.
If Europe is democratic, peaceful, clean, cultured and wealthy, able to manage asylum seekers and treat them with respect, integrate immigrants while providing universal healthcare, a benign rule of law, human rights, healthy food and a sustainable environment, it would reveal a deep truth about America. To Trump and his incompetent, debased cabal, it’s not a beacon in the darkness to point the way to a better future; it’s an abomination to be crushed. He only has contempt for everything we stand for.
For him to succeed, Europe must fail.
That’s the reality. And if we don’t help to defend the EU, preferably from the inside, where we could wield real influence, goodness knows where the world will end up. Reversing Brexit has become a national imperative, and all parties must realise it.
