🔗 Share this article

The UK government is testing out a new stance on leaving the EU, but this isn't equivalent to a change in direction. The adjustment is mostly in tone.

In the past, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves described Britain's detachment from Europe as a fixed element of the political landscape, difficult to manage maybe, but ultimately unavoidable. Currently, they are prepared to admit it as a genuine affliction.

Financial Consequences and Political Positioning

Speaking at a local economic summit this week, the finance minister included EU withdrawal together with the COVID-19 and austerity as causes of ongoing financial stagnation. She repeated this perspective during an IMF gathering in the US capital, noting that the country's productivity challenge has been worsened by the way in which the Britain departed from the European Union.

This was a precisely formulated statement, assigning damage not to the departure decision but to its implementation; blaming the politicians who negotiated it, not the public who supported it. This differentiation will be crucial when the financial plan is unveiled next month. The goal is to attribute some fiscal difficulties to the deal negotiated by Boris Johnson without seeming to disrespect the aspirations of those who voted to exit.

Economic Evidence and Professional Assessment

For those who value evidence, the financial debate is largely settled. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the UK's sustained output is 4% lower than it could have been with ongoing European partnership.

In addition to the costs of trade friction, there has been a ongoing drop in corporate spending due to political instability and regulatory ambiguity. There was also the opportunity cost of administrative effort being diverted toward a task for which little planning had been made, since few proponents had thoroughly evaluated the practical implications of achieving it.

With evidence being clear, officials find it hard to maintain political neutrality. The central bank chief informed last week's IMF meeting that he holds no position on EU exit then stated that its impact on growth will be negative for the coming years.

He forecast a slight positive adjustment over the long term, which provides scant relief to a treasury head who must address a major funding gap soon. Tax increases are planned, and Reeves wants the public to recognize that Brexit is a partial cause.

Electoral Difficulties and Voter Views

The statement is important to voice because it is true. That doesn't guarantee electoral advantage from saying it. The same reality was evident when the government presented its previous tax-raising budget and during the general election campaign, which Labour fought while sidestepping the inevitability of higher levies.

Now, with the administration being neither new nor popular, explaining economic hardship comes across as making excuses to many voters. There could be more advantage in faulting the Tories for everything if they were the only alternative and a serious challenger. The classic incumbent strategy in a bipartisan contest is to assert responsibility for fixing the previous administration's mess and warn against their return. The rise of Reform UK complicates matters.

Policy differences between the two parties are small, but the electorate observe interpersonal conflict more than ideological alignment. Supporters of the Reform leader due to lost faith in the system—particularly on immigration control—do not view the two parties as similar entities. The Conservatives has a history of allowing immigration, while the other does not—a difference their leader will consistently highlight.

Shifting Rhetoric and Future Strategy

The Reform leader is less eager to talk about EU exit, in part since it is a legacy shared with Conservatives and also because there are few benefits to highlight. If challenged, he may contend that the vision was sabotaged by flawed implementation, but even that defense admits failure. Easier to change the subject.

This clarifies why the government feels more confident raising the issue. Starmer's recent party conference speech marked a significant shift. Earlier, he had discussed UK-EU relations in dry, technical terms, focusing on a partnership renewal that addressed non-controversial trade barriers like border inspections while avoiding the divisive cultural issues at the heart of the post-referendum turmoil.

In his speech, the PM stopped short of pro-EU arguments, but he hinted at awareness of previous assertions. He referenced "false promises on the side of that bus"—referring to exit supporters' vows about health service money—in the framework of "dubious solutions" promoted by politicians whose simplistic answers worsen the country's challenges.

Leaving Europe was compared to the pandemic as difficult experiences endured by the public in the past period. Likening EU exit to an illness signals a hardening of rhetoric, even if the economic measures currently under discussion in Brussels remain unchanged.

Challenger Attacks and Governing Reality

The objective is to link Farage to a notorious case of political mis-selling, suggesting he cannot be trusted; that he exploits discontent and creates conflict but lacks governing competence.

Recent suspensions of four Kent councillors from the party's administrative wing supports that message. Recorded videos of a online meeting revealed internal squabbling and blame-shifting, highlighting the challenges inexperienced figures face when delivering public services on tight finances—far tougher than distributing leaflets about reducing inefficiency or controlling immigration.

This line of attack is effective for the government, but it depends on the government's service delivery being sufficiently strong that choosing the challengers seems a dangerous experiment. Moreover, this is a strategy for a later election that may not occur until 2029. If the leadership wish to appear as antidotes to Faragism, they must demonstrate meanwhile with a positively defined agenda of their own.

Final Thoughts

Restrictions exist to what is possible with a rhetorical shift, and time is short. It would be simpler to argue now that Brexit is an affliction and Farage a fraud if they had said so earlier. What additional choices might they have? Do they merit praise for acknowledging it today when alternate justifications are exhausted? Yes. But the problem of reaching the obvious conclusion via the most circuitous route is that people question the delay. Starting from the truth is quicker.