Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary 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 of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot 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 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 the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK 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 cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
