Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses 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 always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building 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, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor 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 the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
