Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.