Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses 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 leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals 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 some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
