So far, so routine. Labour wants to update and if possible upgrade the United Kingdom’s arrangements with our immediate neighbour and by far our biggest trading partner, the European Union. As any new government would. The recent destabilisation of world trade adds urgency to the task. So our government goes to Brussels and (after the customary silly European ‘to the wire’ theatrics) hammers out what looks like a sensible improvement on the existing unnecessarily irksome restrictions and procedures. The deal involves – inevitably – a few concessions on both sides (we concede a bit on fishing) but overall looks modestly advantageous for us and for them.
A thoroughly workmanlike result. As governments are wont to do, ours somewhat exaggerates the scale of the achievement, but is entitled to take some satisfaction from the result. Polling suggests that a majority of the British population believe a new EU deal will have a positive effect on the UK economy. Lord Rose of Monewden (former boss of Marks and Spencer) is enthusiastic. ‘It has to be a win,’ he tells Times Radio.
And – oh sweet Jesus spare us, here we go – the Tories kick off on Brexit. ‘We’re becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again,’ snarls their leader, Kemi Badenoch – as if a fair measure of alignment were ever avoidable once Boris Johnson’s Brexiters sensibly swerved the ‘cold-water Singapore’ option. Then ‘Former home secretary Suella Braverman says the government has “let down our fishing community”’, reports the BBC. And the easing of restrictions on youth mobility? ‘Very concerning,’ says Badenoch. Summing up (before the details of the deal have even been announced), the leader of the opposition has given us the Conservative verdict: ‘This isn’t a reset, it’s a surrender.’
In our unwritten constitution, the duty of the official opposition is to oppose. That duty is often best fulfilled by, if not giving credit where it’s due, at least knowing when it is wisest to keep your mouth shut. Often ‘opposition’ most usefully takes the form of scrutinising the small print, asking searching questions, or even – heaven help us – reserving judgment until full consideration has been given to complex matters. Sensible Tory oppositions know the value of circumspection, and on a range of other subjects Badenoch has been sensibly circumspect. We don’t know the Conservatives’ thinking on social care. We’re in the dark as to whether they think government will have to raise taxation. Badenoch’s assessment of Trump’s presidency remains a mystery to us.
The thought has occurred to me that Starmer and Macron conspired to make fishing a key sticking-point
But on Europe? ‘Surrender!’ Within seconds she seems to have made a simplistic analysis of a complicated document that she hadn’t seen before she reacted. And discretion flew out of the window. That old reflexive urge to bang on about Europe kicked in. Muscle memory, I suppose. Good news from Brussels? Conservative eyes swivel straight on to the last two words – ‘from Brussels’ – and see in them the automatic negation of any claim that such news could ever be good.
Surveying the whole wide field of British interests – defence, security, intelligence-sharing, youth opportunities, co-operation in science, ease of trade in food and agricultural products, fast-tracking Northern Ireland’s imports from mainland Britain… – the Tory eye spots the fishing sector (0.03 per cent of our economic output) and at once fishing balloons into a vital economic interest, all but crowding the others out. In their Tory hearts, every opposition MP becomes a doughty trawlerman, brine-soaked and weather beaten, eyes narrowed against the spray, battling the high seas – and Europe.
The truth is otherwise. Fishing has been a gift to the UK negotiating team. Do you remember the story of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch? ‘Please don’t throw me in the briar patch,’ pleaded Brer Rabbit, trapped by his old enemy Mr Fox. ‘Do what you like, anything, kill me, eat me, but please, please, not that, not the briar patch.’ So naturally Mr Fox threw his foe into the briar patch; whereupon Brer Rabbit escaped down the rabbit hole he knew was there. If we are Brer Rabbit, then in these negotiations fishing was our briar patch. No, please, please, M. Renard, not fisheries, not quotas, spare our fishermen!
Fishing has always been neuralgic for the French: for many reasons their political culture holds the sector close to its heart. We British may be sentimental about this dwindling sector of our economy, but its interests no longer resonate with us as once they did. What better ground, then, for us to argue so fiercely for but finally concede? What better pretext for defending this national interest right up to the eleventh hour, then, as a deal clincher, allowing France to celebrate a victory? The thought has occurred to me that Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron knowingly conspired to make this a key sticking-point in the negotiations. It was win-win. Macron comes home to Paris as saviour of the national interest. Starmer returns to London with a good renegotiation deal, and the slight bother of a disappointment in a small sector of abiding concern to few beyond those whose livelihoods depend on it… plus, of course, the Conservative opposition.
On the issue of fish I have no views. On Brexit, to my own slight surprise, my passions have faded. I was a Remainer and I still wish we’d stayed – but, hey, the sky didn’t fall in, and that was all a long time ago. My own apathy is nationally very widely shared, including by many former Brexiters. For the Tories to keep flogging this dead horse will bring no great joy to formerly Brexit breakfast tables, while for former Remainers it will serve only as a reminder of an unedifying obsession that consumed a party and a government some years ago.
There are big policy questions to which those of us who still wish to vote Conservative want to hear the answers. Fish are not among them. Leave it, Kemi, just leave it.
Comments