Labour’s election manifesto has been criticised by many commentators for being too vague; like a ‘choose your own adventure’ book which would allow the party to do almost whatever it likes in government. This was highlighted today by Rachel Reeve’s remarks on Brexit. In an interview with the Financial Times, the shadow chancellor pointed out the need to improve elements of the UK’s trade deal with the EU and ‘reset’ Britain’s global image. This is said to mark a shift in tone (if not substance) from a party which previously did not want to focus on these issues.
On Brexit, the manifesto is plain that there will be ‘no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement
Yet, if you look more closely at the manifesto, that is not entirely fair. On questions of Brexit and trade, once you get beyond the waffle about Labour’s ‘mission in government’, there is actually a fair bit of detail in the document, and much of it amounts to business as usual.
On Brexit, the manifesto is plain that there will be ‘no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement’. Labour is also clear that it would be keen to negotiate a veterinary agreement ‘to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food’. It also commits to co-operating with the EU on issues such as mutual recognition for professional qualifications and security. Today, Reeves mentioned a bespoke arrangement for rules in the chemicals sector. These all appear to be limited and, for the most part, pragmatic ambitions.
The adoption of a veterinary agreement is likely to mean that the UK would have to adopt EU food standards. But given that there has been a general reluctance to accept hormone treated beef and chlorine washed chicken in the UK, and the adoption of high-tech lab grown meat seems far away, that outcome is unlikely to have a very significant impact during the next parliament.
The more serious question posed by Brexiteers is whether we are likely to see backsliding on more significant issues, such as a customs union with the EU (a cause previously promoted by Sir Keir Starmer when he was shadow Brexit secretary). This is where the manifesto provides some more interesting detail. While it mentions trade unions far more frequently than trade deals, the short section on ‘championing UK prosperity’ actually appears to be a fairly no-nonsense continuation of the Conservative party’s ‘global Britain’ agenda.
The manifesto promises to promote ‘deeper trade and co-operation’, including through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This suggests that Labour would complete the UK’s accession into the 11-member trade bloc (featuring Canada, Australia, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand amongst others) which is one of the largest in the world. The UK has now ratified CPTPP, but is still waiting for other members of the bloc to agree its membership.
Cheerleaders for the agreement argue that UK membership will demonstrate the UK’s success as an independent trading nation (although it is broadly acknowledged that membership will bring only limited economic benefits to the UK, since we already have bilateral trade deals with almost all the member states). According to Chatham House, any real benefits are likely to be strategic: the UK can use its membership ‘to boost its global profile by influencing trade and international governance.’
But accession to CPTPP would also make it much more difficult for the UK to join a customs union with the EU – a point Grant Shapps was quick to highlight during our accession negotiations. He argued that joining the EU customs union would mean the UK would have to withdraw from CPTPP, which ‘would certainly anger some of our closest allies around the world, like Canada, Japan and Australia’.
A further nod to business as usual is the Labour manifesto’s reference to a proposed new trade deal with India (which has been under negotiation since 2022) and a mention of ‘co-operation with partners across the Gulf on regional security, energy and trade and investment’ (a trade deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council has also been under discussion since the beginning of 2022).
All of these commitments suggest that Labour will seek to straddle two horses during its first term in office, negotiating minor modifications to our arrangements with the EU whilst continuing with many of the policies currently being pursued by the Department for Business and Trade.
This is sure to disappoint Remainers looking for a more ambitious European policy. But they cannot say that Labour has not been straightforward in its approach.
There have as well been some additional developments which should please trade wonks. First, Labour has committed to stop prioritising ‘insubstantial’ trade deals and has instead promised to publish a ‘trade strategy’. This has been a long-term goal of a number of parliamentary select committees and it might allow the UK to focus on its long-term economic interests more effectively.
Second, Labour has stated that it would champion Scotland and Wales through the UK’s trade networks. At present, both nations have argued that they do not have sufficient input into trade deals and that new agreements do not always reflect their particular concerns. This has been a particular problem for the Conservatives given they had to do business with the SNP in Edinburgh, who have never been shy of channelling P.G. Wodehouse’s archetypal ‘Scotsman with a grievance’.
One area where Labour is demonstrating a complete lack of ambition is finding a role for parliament. This should not come as a surprise. Trade policy is often contentious and new trade agreements often involve trade offs between different interests (for example on issues such as agriculture and visas). Nonetheless, there is a fairly strong consensus that it is important for there to be democratic consent and legitimacy for these arrangements. Whatever your party political views, everyone should want to ensure that parliamentary sovereignty is not bypassed by treaties which might constrain future domestic legislation on significant political matters.
During the last parliament, several select committees and parliamentarians (including the former Brexit negotiator, Lord Frost) argued that parliamentary consent should be required for new free trade deals. If Labour does achieve a landslide victory, it would make sense to give parliament a real voice on these important matters.
Comments