Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious 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 and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over 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” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views 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 has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
