Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains 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, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
