Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
