Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America 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.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
