Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel 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, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
