Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
