Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. 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.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit 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 how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and 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 most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
