Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed 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 darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments 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 has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
