Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. 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 sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials 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, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
