Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain 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 the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
