Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "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 inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence 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 the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering 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. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
