Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. 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". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, 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, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of 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 nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” 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 senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out 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 of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
