Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for 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 speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing 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 Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit 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 is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact 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 for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
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 may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
