Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
