That Case Is Worth Restating

In stark contrast to Ed West’s latest, though far from first, outpouring of Bregret, Larry Elliott writes:

On the morning after the vote for Brexit, The Guardian’s newsroom was deathly quiet. There was disbelief that the public had voted the way it had, and the place was in mourning. With one exception the paper’s columnists had backed remain, and the shock of defeat was all the harder to bear because they had expected their side to triumph.

The exception to the house view was me – and I certainly received some old-fashioned looks from my colleagues that day. Judging by my inbox, both then and thereafter, my colleagues were more in tune with the readers than I was, but the editor thought it important that my leftwing case for Brexit should be given a hearing. Ten years on, that case is worth restating.

The first strand in the argument is that Europe isn’t working, and hasn’t been working for a long time. There has always been an economic case for EU membership but it has become harder to make down the years. When Britain was first applying to join what was then the European Economic Community, the major European economies were growing a lot faster than Britain, and were also closing the gap with the US. That is no longer the case. In the more than 17 years since the financial crisis, the US has grown by 87%, compared with the EU’s 13.5% – more than six times as fast.

True, the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the economy will be 4% smaller in the 15 years after the referendum than it would have been had the UK remained in the single market – but this finding should be treated with some scepticism. As Jeremy Hunt, who campaigned for remain, told the BBC last week, for the economy to be 4% bigger today it would have had to have grown as fast as the US – something the former chancellor finds implausible.

The second is that Brexit highlighted the weaknesses of Britain’s financial services-dominated economic model, and provided the opportunity to try something different. While it would be wrong to blame Brussels for all Britain’s economic woes, any serious repair job requires a freedom of manoeuvre that EU membership made more difficult.

The government’s decision to impose tariffs to protect Britain’s steel industry and to cut duties on 100 imported food products to ease the cost of living crisis are examples of that freedom being used. If Andy Burnham is serious about reversing “40 years of neoliberalism”, that will require curbs on the free movement of capital, goods and people – all expressly forbidden by single-market rules.

And third, Brexit was a howl of anger from those parts of Britain that felt marginalised and forgotten. It was a vote for a different economic settlement to put right the damage caused by deindustrialisation and globalisation.

This was a problem for both the traditional big two parties but particularly for Labour, because since the late 1980s, it had tacitly accepted that the right had won the big economic arguments. The left subsequently concentrated on cultural battles that it thought it could win. A warmer approach to Europe was part of Labour’s new message.

That shift began in the late 1980s, when the TUC, having suffered three defeats at the hands of Margaret Thatcher, was seduced by Jacques Delors’ vision of a social Europe. The things the unions loathed about Thatcher – in particular the legal curbs on their activities – could be circumvented by solidarity at a European level. As it happened, these social gains proved to be illusory, not least because the EU was just as wedded to austerity and neoliberal economics as Thatcher had been.

But that’s wasn’t the point. Being pro-EU was not about how fast living standards were rising, or whether membership of the single market would boost productivity. Rather it was about a sense of self, something that marked you out as progressive and tolerant and not bigoted or nasty. It became the ultimate expression of identity politics.

In Britain, Tony Blair’s governments embraced the zeitgeist. Globalisation was like the weather, Blair insisted, something that could not be opposed. His third way involved tinkering with the Thatcherite settlement he inherited but no more than that.

That was all very well while living standards were still rising, but it left a vacuum when the financial crisis erupted in 2008. At that moment, when neoliberalism was on its knees, Labour had no convincing analysis of what had gone wrong. The system was patched up, but not fundamentally changed. Austerity filled the vacuum, causing still more hardship to working-class communities that suffered a double hollowing out – first of well-paid manufacturing jobs then of public services.

As Frank Furedi puts it in his new book, In Defence of Populism, “Brexit represented an astonishingly powerful response to the double betrayal of the people. It rejected the hitherto hegemonic outlook of the technocratic-managerial elites and effectively challenged the globalist ideology that dominated the institutions of western Europe.” 

Brexit showed that class still matters in politics, and Burnham seems to get that. In his speech after his win in the Makerfield byelection, the man soon to be prime minister talked of how his constituents had “voted for change, they have voted for more power for the north and everywhere forgotten by Westminster”.

We shall see. In itself, Brexit alters nothing. It creates an opportunity for change but by no means guarantees the changes that are needed will happen. But it has unleashed demands for action that will not be stilled. For me, that’s a good thing.

And Brendan Chilton writes:

The victory of Andy Burnham in Makerfield and the resignation of Keir Starmer have undoubtedly transformed the political landscape. Labour now faces a leadership election that will determine who leads both the party and the Government into the second half of this Parliament and onto the next general election expected as late as 2029. Yet amidst the speculation about personalities, factions and future direction, there is one important point that Labour members, ministers and MPs should remember: a change of leader does not change the mandate on which Labour was elected in 2024.

The Labour Party won the 2024 General Election on a clear manifesto, and every Labour MP must deliver on that manifesto. That document committed Labour to making Brexit work, not reversing it, or altering it, or watering it down. That manifesto clearly ruled out rejoining the European Union, ruled out returning to the Single Market, ruled out re-entering the Customs Union and ruled out the return of freedom of movement. Those commitments were not hidden in the small print. They formed a central and exclusive part of Labour's offer to the British people and successive Labour figures have repeated those commitments, including both Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham.

The reason was simple. Labour understood that the country wanted to move on from the Brexit divisions. After years of fighting and arguing, voters were exhausted by the Brexit debate. Whether they voted Leave or Remain, most people wanted politicians to focus on economic growth, public services, living standards and national renewal. Labour's success came not from promising to revisit the arguments of the past but from promising to address the challenges of the future. That reality has not changed because Keir Starmer has resigned. Nor has it changed because Andy Burnham has returned to Westminster.

Indeed, if there is one lesson from Burnham's success, it is that Labour remains strongest when it speaks to a broad coalition of voters that includes many former Leave supporters. The coalition that delivered Labour's majority stretches across metropolitan cities, market towns, former industrial communities and suburban England. It includes millions of voters who backed Brexit and who subsequently supported Labour because they believed the party had accepted the democratic settlement established by the 2016 referendum. As well as remain voters who, democratically and honourably accepted the outcome of the referendum. To abandon that position now would be politically reckless.

There are some within Labour and outside who will inevitably argue that a leadership contest presents an opportunity to revisit Britain's relationship with the European Union. They will point to some opinion polls showing increased support for closer ties with Europe. Although polls have also shown that the British people do not wish to return powers to Brussels. Others will argue that a new leader should pursue deeper integration as part of a broader economic strategy. Such arguments fundamentally misunderstand both the electoral and political realities facing the Labour Party.

The principal threat to Labour's future does not come from voters demanding a return to the European Union. It comes from the growing strength of Reform UK in many of the very constituencies Labour needs to retain if it is to secure a second term in office.

Reform's appeal is rooted in a belief among many voters that political elites have failed to respect democratic decisions and have become disconnected from public concerns. Whatever one's views of Reform, it would be a profound mistake to hand that party an argument that Labour intends to dilute or reverse Brexit by stealth further strengthening their argument that the elites ignore the electorate. The consequences could be severe and fatal to Labour.

Labour's parliamentary majority was built in part upon winning back voters who had abandoned the party in 2019. Many of those voters remain sceptical of Westminster and deeply attached to the principle that the referendum result should be respected. If Labour were seen to be retreating from its manifesto commitments on Europe, Reform would have a powerful narrative around which to organise opposition. The danger is not merely electoral. It is also about trust.

One of the reasons Labour succeeded in rebuilding its reputation before the 2024 election was because it demonstrated a willingness to listen to voters. It accepted that Brexit had happened and committed itself to making the new settlement work. That helped restore credibility among people who had previously concluded that Labour was unwilling to respect decisions with which it disagreed.

None of this means Labour should adopt a hostile attitude towards Europe. Britain and the European Union remain important partners. Cooperation on security, defence, scientific research, energy policy and trade is entirely sensible and in the national interest. Constructive engagement with our European neighbours is not only desirable but necessary. However, cooperation is not the same thing as reintegration. The next Labour leader should be free to improve practical cooperation where it benefits Britain. They should be free to reduce unnecessary barriers and strengthen relationships with European partners. They should remain free to strike trade deals, such as those already achieved by the government with the Gulf States, India, the United States. What they should not do is reopen questions that the party explicitly settled before the election. That distinction matters because Labour's credibility depends upon keeping its promises.

A leadership election should be a debate about how best to deliver economic growth, improve public services, tackle housing shortages and raise living standards. It should not become a vehicle for reopening old arguments about Brexit that the country has already decided. Anyone seeking to resurrect those old Brexit arguments is damaging the Labour Party. Ultimately, the lesson of both Labour's election victory and Burnham's success is that broad coalitions are built through trust, competence and respect for voters. The party won because it promised stability and change within clear boundaries. Those boundaries included a commitment to respect Brexit while making it work in Britain's interests. That commitment remains just as important today as it was on polling day.

New leaders may emerge. New priorities may develop. New challenges will certainly arise. We don’t know how many people will stand for the position of Leader. But the democratic mandate on which Labour was elected remains unchanged, unless a new general election is sought with a new mandate. If Labour wishes to go on to secure a second term in government, it should focus relentlessly on delivering growth, opportunity and renewal. The path to victory lies in fulfilling the promises it has already made, not revisiting the arguments it has already settled.