Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge 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 grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – 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 & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still 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, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent 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 the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
