Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, 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. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters 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 big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
