Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. 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 remains 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, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition 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 muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner 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 Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
