Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose 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 ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths 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, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners 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, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear 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 of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
