Owen Polley: Labour’s manoeuvring on EU won’t fix Irish Sea border trade problems

Streeting has made rejoining the bloc his main pitch to Labour members, while Burnham previously made a similar argument.

The Greater Manchester mayor is now forced to be more circumspect, because his chances of becoming PM depend upon winning a by-election in Makerfield, which voted ‘Leave’ in the EU referendum.

In fact, there have been some suggestions that Sir Keir made his intervention specifically to put Burnham in an awkward position. If these were his tactics, they could backfire.

If Starmer remains prime minister, his remarks on rejoining are likely to sabotage any chance of getting a favourable deal with Brussels this spring. Just two weeks ago, he claimed that his government would put the UK back ‘at the heart of Europe’ as part of a ‘reset’ of his leadership, following Labour’s disastrous election results.

This was already a plan that reeked of desperation and, despite ministers’ claims to the contrary, I’ve argued before that it would not solve Northern Ireland’s Irish Sea border problems.

One year ago, Starmer managed to announce a ‘common understanding’ with the EU. This ‘deal’, which began talks on agrifood, emissions trading and youth mobility, among other topics, soon turned out to be little more than an agreement to agree at some unspecified time in the future.

Since then, progress has been slow, and it has mainly taken the form of British concessions in the face of Brussels’ intransigence. Infamously, for example, Starmer extended the EU’s access to British fishing waters until 2038, costing the UK industry up to £6 billion worth of fish.

The prime minister was already regarded as a woefully weak negotiator, and now he is desperate for a deal that he can claim as an achievement and a reason to extend his premiership.

The EU was never going to be shy about taking advantage of his predicament.

Brussels is even less likely to take a reasonable, proportionate attitude to negotiations now Starmer has raised the possibility of Britain rejoining. It can simply argue that, if the UK wants to unlock the benefits of smooth trade with its single market and customs union, we must apply again for full membership.

This is bad news for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland that were hoping the ‘reset’ deal might bring down trade barriers in the Irish Sea. It also increases the chances that the government will get exploited financially by Brussels, as part of any agreement.

There is an argument that a Labour campaign to rejoin would be more honest than its current position. It is clearly what most of the parliamentary party would like to do, if it weren’t so nervous of the electorate.

Many Brexiteers claim the ‘reset’ deal is anyway just a sneaky way of eventually achieving the same thing. As part of its European Partnership Bill, the government seems poised to accept EU regulation for most of the economy before it even reaches a deal with Brussels on agriculture and other issues.

Some cynics, like the TUV MP Jim Allister, believe the idea is to align voluntarily, but leave problems like the Irish Sea border in place. Labour will then find it easier to argue that we may as well become a full member of the bloc again, so that we get a say in its policies, rather than simply accepting rules that we did not make and cannot change, in return for few advantages.

If Labour supported ‘rejoin’ at a general election, voters would at least be clear about what a vote for the party meant for their future. Unfortunately, a general election is not likely to take place until 2029.

That means that there are two main difficulties with Starmer’s remarks.

Firstly, even the keenest europhiles concede that the UK will not be allowed to rejoin, unless it accepts significantly worse terms than we had before Brexit. In particular, the rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher to reflect Britain’s more open economy and smaller agriculture sector, would no longer reduce our contribution to the EU’s budget by many billions each year.

More importantly perhaps, particularly from a Northern Ireland perspective, Starmer and the government clearly intend to pursue their ‘reset’ with Brussels regardless of whether or not they eventually make the case to rejoin.

That gives the EU an incentive to toughen its approach to the UK, refuse to relax leverage like unreasonable Irish Sea border barriers, and drive home the idea that the advantages of smooth trade and a cordial relationship are reserved for full members.

For the time being, Britain’s interests will be defended by a supplicant prime minister, who may at any time be ousted by his own party. Indeed, even if Starmer is replaced, his successor might not be much stronger in negotiations, given Labour’s ongoing problems.

The prime minister and his likely replacements are all relatively pro-Brussels, but their strategy on the EU remains a mess. After Starmer’s latest comments, there is even less chance that Northern Ireland’s specific post-Brexit issues will be eased any time soon.