Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about 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 voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into 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 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 viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
