Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
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 proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” 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 stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
