Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled 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 European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation 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 remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
