Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, 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". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y 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 Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into 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 and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.