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 were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost 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 offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, 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 Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
