The point of a big city mayor can often be to say things that national politicians have put into the “too difficult” drawer. Moving them into the reality box is another matter.
In his run-up to the London elections in May, Sadiq Khan has returned to the “Brexit isn’t working” theme. It has long been his cry (and repetitious firework theme) as a leader in a city which mourns the enforced divorce from institutional Europe and the knock-on effects in arduous travel and study arrangements.
A speech at the weekend tilting at Sir Keir Starmer’s “omerta” on discussing remedies for Brexit — or even the full-fat dream of re-joining — hit the Bregret buttons. The bald truth, however, is what the London Mayor says about the EU matters about as much as what the mayor of Berlin or Paris says about London: this idea has caused little excitement in Europe’s capitals. Added to which, Rejoin-ers flocking to Khan’s proposals should be wary. They may fall into a mirror image of the trap into which Brexiteers hurtled when they claimed that cutting ties with the trade partner and land mass next door would be a simple matter.
It was not — and neither is re-attachment. I don’t really know if Britain will re-join the EU in its present form. The EU is changing — more fraught and fissiparous, less keen on migration — and will change more as it faces the economic and security strains of the Ukraine crisis. It will remain resistant to overtures from the UK, other than alleviating trade frictions or residency rights, where both parties benefit in clear financial terms.
There is still a distrust of Remain, urban elites — many who believe in the cause prefer not to heed this
The present habit of extrapolating from polls showing a will to rejoin the EU also skews the argument because they do not factor in the inevitably high cost of any such measure — and the renewed splits that would open up in any negotiation. So the idea of “meaningful realignment” , as Khan put it, is a hiding to nowhere because it is uninteresting to decision-leaders in Europe. They are more preoccupied by the even more extreme forms of populism on the march: the electoral rise of nativist forces ranging from National Rally in France to an upswing of far-right AfD voter patterns in Germany. The latter was so alarming that it has brought many thousands onto the streets to denounce the anti-foreigner rhetoric of the far-Right party, which now flirts with mass deportations of foreigners oblivious to the shadows of history on that score.
And even if there were any reciprocal desire for such an arrangement, try drawing it up. Khan is arguing that London should be able to waive national agreements because it is special in vague way. But why not Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds?
A “youth mobility” proposal, which suggests that after a certain age we would be consigned back to the existing more onerous arrangements, sounds like a very short route to age discrimination challenges.
Sorting out the cut-off age would not be fun and on a small point of international diplomacy, cities cannot negotiate with countries, and neither could the urban authorities waive immigration law.
Naturally, a lot of us in the capital would love to get rid of the infuriating Brexit-induced travel hurdles, such as being funnelled into the queue of the damned at passport control in the non-EU, non-EEA line (which will get even slower as the EU rolls out facial recognition and fingerprinting for those outside the European Union in autumn). It might well be that a Starmer government can aim to take the edge off the tensions which led to this situation, if it stays in power long enough to gain trust on the matter at home and abroad.
There is still an underlying distrust of Remain, urban elites. Many who believe in the cause prefer not to heed this or assume will simply disappear. Starmer acknowledges this awkward fact and Khan, in essence, does not. He has a supportive Remain base in London while the Labour leader needs to scrap it out on the more difficult terrain in a general election. Starmer must also show that he might have learned something about what drove the Brexit result and caution in assuming that it can simply be over-ridden.
The consequences of the referendum have indeed been a stew of wishful thinking, chaotic implementation and denial about the impacts of leaving the EU. All the more to be sceptical of those who arrive with a glib solution which fizzles like a New Year firework on close inspection. When it comes to Brexit, there’s no quick fix.
