Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. 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 the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, 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 a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises 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, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
