Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed 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 Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
