Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, 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 Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals 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 key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Reminder
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 wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
