Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In 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 leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric 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 how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, 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 note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
