A Wider Strategy

In amongst it all, Mark Leonard makes some important points:

Ed Miliband has now ended the speculation about Labour's plans on an EU referendum: he will not hold one unless he signs a new treaty moving power from Westminster to Brussels.

He rightly refused to match David Cameron's promise of a plebiscite in 2017 – a pledge driven by party disunity rather than public choice – and deftly ended the current uncertainty before May's European elections, while putting himself on the right side of public opinion.

But tactical interventions need to feed into a wider strategy. Labour only wins big when it manages to root its progressive aspirations in the national story.

Miliband has certainly taken this to heart and developed a promise of "responsible capitalism" in one country – following the conventional wisdom that the less he drinks from the poisoned chalice of Europe, the more electorally successful he will be.

But in 1945, 1964 and 1997 Labour leaders did not simply recapture the flag, they also offered a convincing narrative about how Britain could respond to a changing international environment, whether through winning the peace, catching up with continental Europe, or taming globalisation.

Miliband's Europe speech was a recognition that the political cycle is once again being framed by arguments about international issues.

After several false starts, Cameron has a story about his political project that resonates with his party and offers an account of a changing world, the idea of the "global race".

But, the Labour leader has not yet developed an adequate critique of Cameron's story about a "global race", nor put forward an alternative Labour one.

The combination of Blue Labour, Euro-realism and the opposition to the war in Syria have led some to portray the party as isolationist.

On the other hand, when Labour acts out of principle on foreign policy – as it did on Syria and the EU budget – it faces charges of cynicism.

Miliband needs to build a more positive story about what he wants for Britain in a changing world.

The unifying theme should explain how Britain can prepare for Chinese-led globalisation, how a reformed Europe can help Britain succeed, and how we should respond to the new turmoil and openings in the Middle East.

Rather than buying into the Eurosceptic's picture of the world as a tangle of benign networks where everyone lives in the cloud, Britain must prepare for a world of competition where size and power matter, and where state capitalist economies such as China will seek to use their enormous markets and political power to create an unlevel playing field.

Labour needs to acknowledge that, while globalisation has benefited Britain, it has speeded up deindustrialisation, costing jobs and wage growth for many.

Rather than defending the status quo, Miliband has an opportunity to explain how a reformed Europe can be a passport to success in this new world.

He could offer a new reform agenda for Europe – a post-crisis growth and social policy; a new approach to migration; and an agenda of self-government in Europe.

Labour's response to migration is necessarily defensive.

Labour must set out a more detailed account of Europe as a multiplier of growth in a multipolar world, rather than a conveyer belt for austerity.

This could include a European strategy for reindustrialisation and a new generation of trade agreements with countries such as the US and Japan to drive up standards in the global economy and level the playing field with China.

It could go beyond domestic measures such as boosting the living wage and benefit abuse to explore how a reformed EU budget could help ease pressure on public services.

But the key is to reframe the debate to move growth in a multipolar world. This could include a European strategy for reindustrialisation and fair trade.

Most important, Labour must claim the mantle of self-government.

The key is to reframe the debate so it is not just about a single one-off vote about being in the EU, but about the ability of governments to be sovereign over their own affairs.

It is worth talking about Norway, whose own parliament labelled its non-membership of the EU "a democratic disaster".

Because Norway cannot afford economically to be excluded from Europe's single market, it is bound to pay into the EU budget and adopt nearly all EU laws but has no role in making them.

To complete his international strategy – and heal party wounds – Miliband also needs an account of intervention after the Iraq war.

It is rare for an opposition party to have an impact on its country's foreign policy – let alone the wider world. 

However, Labour got little credit for a vote on Syria that opened the path for an extraordinary turnaround in global politics because Miliband did not anchor his decision in a wider strategy.

The core elements of the Labour approach were set out by Douglas Alexander at the time of the vote: exhausting every avenue for a multilateral approach before acting unilaterally; using diplomacy with unfriendly as well as friendly nations and exhausting that before thinking about military action; and linking the chemical weapons deal and the Iran deal to a Geneva II conference or an alternative structure.

Now Miliband needs to link his approach to a region trapped in an ever-escalating cycle of sectarianism and violence to this wider international vision.

The world has changed dramatically since Labour last won power in 1997 – even since it lost power in 2010 – both in terms of the policy environment and public attitudes.

But the party lacks a compelling voice.

It continues to be split between globalisers, liberal interventionists and pro-Europeans, and the Blue Labour apostles of localism and disengagement.

If Miliband is to present himself as a credible prime minister in waiting, he will need to craft a story that makes sense of the world that he will be governing in, as well as an aspirational account of what a Labour government might seek to do.