Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In 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 was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
