Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
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 deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed 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 to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately 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 on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
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 the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect 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 himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
