Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still 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 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.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported 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 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 following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners 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, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch 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 to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves 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 prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
