🔗 Share this article

The UK government is testing out a fresh approach on leaving the EU, though this should not be confused with a policy reversal. The modification is primarily tonal.

In the past, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves described Britain's separation from Europe as a permanent feature of the political landscape, difficult to manage maybe, but ultimately unavoidable. Now, they are willing to acknowledge it as a serious problem.

Financial Consequences and Strategic Messaging

Speaking at a local economic summit recently, the chancellor included Brexit alongside the pandemic and spending cuts as factors behind ongoing financial stagnation. She repeated this perspective during an IMF meeting in the US capital, noting that the country's productivity challenge has been worsened by the way in which the UK left the EU.

This was a precisely formulated statement, assigning damage not to Brexit itself but to its implementation; blaming the politicians who negotiated it, not the voters who endorsed it. This differentiation will be crucial when the budget is presented soon. The aim is to assign some fiscal difficulties to the deal negotiated by Boris Johnson without appearing to dismiss the aspirations of leave voters.

Economic Evidence and Expert Opinion

For those who value evidence, the financial debate is largely settled. An independent fiscal watchdog calculates that Britain's long-term productivity is 4% lower than it could have been with continued EU membership.

Beyond the costs of trade friction, there has been a sustained decline in corporate spending due to governmental uncertainty and regulatory ambiguity. Additionally the opportunity cost of administrative effort being diverted toward a task for which no preparation had been made, since few proponents had seriously considered the practical implications of making it happen.

When facts are undeniable, officials find it hard to maintain political neutrality. The Bank of England governor informed last week's IMF meeting that he takes no side on Brexit before adding that its effect on expansion will be adverse for the coming years.

He predicted a mild corrective rebalancing eventually, which provides scant relief to a chancellor who must tackle a major funding gap soon. Taxes are set to rise, and Reeves wants the public to recognize that Brexit is one contributing factor.

Electoral Difficulties and Public Perception

The statement is worth making because it is accurate. This doesn't ensure political benefit from saying it. This truth was apparent when the government presented its earlier fiscal plan and during the national vote, which the party fought while sidestepping the certainty of higher levies.

At this stage, with the government being neither new nor popular, detailing financial struggles sounds like making excuses to numerous constituents. There might be more benefit in blaming the Conservatives for all problems if they were the only alternative and a credible threat. The usual ruling party tactic in a two-party system is to claim cleanup duty the opponent's errors and warn against their return. The rise of Reform UK complicates matters.

Ideological gaps between the main opponents are small, but the electorate notice personal rivalry more than ideological alignment. Supporters of Nigel Farage due to distrust in establishment—particularly on immigration control—don't see Reform and the Tories as similar entities. One party has a history of permitting entry, while Reform does not—a contrast their leader will repeatedly emphasize.

Changing Discourse and Long-Term Planning

The Reform leader is less eager to discuss Brexit, partly because it is a legacy jointly owned with Tories and also because there are no positive outcomes to highlight. If challenged, he may contend that the vision was undermined by flawed implementation, but even that defense acknowledges disappointment. Simpler to change the subject.

This explains why the government feels increasingly assured bringing it up. Starmer's address to supporters marked a significant shift. Previously, he had discussed British-European ties in dry, technical terms, focusing on a partnership renewal that targeted non-controversial trade barriers like border inspections while steering clear of the sensitive topics at the core of the Brexit aftermath.

During his address, the PM did not fully embrace old remainer rhetoric, but he hinted at familiarity with past claims. He referenced "false promises on the side of that bus"—alluding to leave campaign pledges about NHS funding—in the context of "dubious solutions" sold by leaders whose easy fixes exacerbate the nation's problems.

Departure from the EU was compared to the pandemic as difficult experiences endured by ordinary people in recent years. Comparing Brexit to a disease indicates a hardening of rhetoric, even if the financial steps currently under discussion in Brussels remain unchanged.

Opposition Criticism and Governing Reality

The aim is to connect Farage to a well-known example of deceptive campaigning, suggesting he is unreliable; that he capitalizes on frustration and creates conflict but lacks governing competence.

The removal of local representatives from Reform's local government team reinforces that message. Recorded videos of a video conference revealed internal disputes and recrimination, highlighting the difficulties amateurs face when providing community resources on tight finances—much harder than campaigning about reducing inefficiency or controlling immigration.

This line of attack is effective for the government, but it requires the government's service delivery being good enough that electing Reform seems a dangerous experiment. Moreover, this is a strategy for a future campaign that may not occur until 2029. If Starmer and Reeves wish to appear as antidotes to Faragism, they must show in the interim with a clear, constructive program of their own.

Final Thoughts

There are limits to what is possible with a rhetorical shift, and the clock is ticking. It would be simpler to make the case today that Brexit is an affliction and his promoter untrustworthy if they had said so earlier. What additional choices might they have? Should they receive credit for acknowledging it today when alternate justifications are exhausted? Certainly. But the problem of arriving at the evident truth via the most circuitous route is that people question the procrastination. Beginning with honesty is faster.