Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall 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. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down 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.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
